ACA: Affordable Care Act (better known as OBAMACARE) - Enrollment Starts October 1st - You In?

[deuce king]

 

We just had a government shutdown that cost the country $28 BILLION and we're talking about a website.

A website that affects many many more....

That still doesn't work

Dueceking, state officials really? Da same officials

That wont disclose da fact that only 6 people signed

Up for healthcare.gov on da first day?

The delay and bugs with the website I agree with you champ.  NO excuses for those issues, although the states didn't help matters for the federal government but it is what it is.  As for the article mentioning the facts about the state officials, you can't pick and choose what parts of the article you like then quote and reject the rest of what the article has to say.  Stop cherry picking champ. 

 

[011781]

think im gonna create a general politics thread....

so we can discuss more than just this.... b/c obviously this topic leads down other roads

 

[rell826]

[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Appeals court deals blow to contraceptive mandate[/h1]
from AP 1 Nov 2013, 10:45 AM PDT 2 post a comment

Share This:

(AP) Appeals court deals blow to contraceptive mandate
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
A divided appeals court panel is siding with Ohio business owners who challenged the birth control mandate under the new federal health care law.

The business owners are two brothers who say the mandate to provide contraceptive coverage would make them violate their Roman Catholic beliefs.

The ruling Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is one of many on the birth control issue, which likely will be resolved by the Supreme Court.

The appeals court panel says the mandate limits the right of free exercise of religion.

The brothers are Francis and Philip M. Gilardi. They say they don't want to provide contraceptives like the Plan B pill for their employees. The Gilardis own Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics of Sidney, Ohio.

 

[rillo561]

Arguing based on assumption is pointless. You have not s single fact to back up what you said. I posted an article a couple pages back that had quotes from real people who were upset about the cancellation of their plans. One gentleman whose plan was deemed subpar was kicked out even though he knowlingly chose that plan.

Also, if you have employer based health insurance and don't know what it covers that is the individuals fault and no one elses.

The cancellations were because the policies didn't meet the requirements for the law. You're right though, everyone knows premiums never went up before the ACA, and no one ever had their policy or coverage changed or yanked out from under them.

Give me a break.

 

[ninjahood]

Arguing based on assumption is pointless. You have not s single fact to back up what you said. I posted an article a couple pages back that had quotes from real people who were upset about the cancellation of their plans. One gentleman whose plan was deemed subpar was kicked out even though he knowlingly chose that plan.

Also, if you have employer based health insurance and don't know what it covers that is the individuals fault and no one elses.

The cancellations were because the policies didn't meet the requirements for the law. You're right though, everyone knows premiums never went up before the ACA, and no one ever had their policy or coverage changed or yanked out from under them.

Give me a break.

"If you like your plan you can keep it, PERIOD."

They hangin obama over that bait & switch.

 

[rillo561]

"If you like your plan you can keep it, PERIOD."

They hangin obama over that bait & switch.

I agree, terrible statement by the president, but why not hold the insurance companies accountable for not offering policies that meet the requirements of the law?


They hangin him tho? I'm not touching that one.....

 

[rico x hood]

Why should insurance companies be held accountable for these supbar plans when people either willfully signed up for them or chose them without reading the benefits of said plan. In both cases Americans had a CHOICE. Which is essentially the crux of this whole debate. The right to choose.

Oh and also these plans that you're calling subpar aren't all necessarily bad. ACA requires a number of specific benchmarks that a plan must meet in order to qualify, such as maternity.and pediatric services. So as a 23 year single man I would have to have a plan that included maternity and pediatric services...I don't need that at this point. But ACA would say my plan was subpar for not having it.

 

[ninjahood]

This is da same reason dont bang with obama with

da cafe Standard laws, basically trying to outlaw V8

engines..Of people want da CHOICE to drive a HUGE

SUV or A heavy duty revving muscle car, it should be

my Right to drive w/e da **** i want...

Its all about that smug "we know better then you

So we picking for you" arrogance that i resent from

Liberals...

 

[crcballer55]

 

Theoretically? Yes, it just wouldn't be under Obama. Practically? No, because government has never taken away something this big before and the congress & President knew that. People have been screaming about Social Security going broke for over 20 years now, but when Bush tried to allow people to contribute their Social Security money to private investments the Congress cried that it would bankrupt the system because they already knew it was a ponzi system and might bring down the system under their watch instead of kicking the can down the road (which is what you want if you're an elected official)

Yeah I believe that was in '08. We all know what happened in '08, SS shouldn't be privatized.

Actually, it was '04 that it was proposed and that was when the markets were still going higher and nobody even suspected that there was a bubble.

- As far as a better system to the ACA? Repeal Medicare Part D that Bush & the Republican congress passed in '03, essentially bringing in more competition to the government from drug manufacturers.

- Substantially increase the medicare/medicaid reimbursement limits to doctors causing the rest of us and insurance companies to pick up the slack for our procedures. One of the biggest problems we face is a lack of doctors that are willing to provide the quality of care we're being promised with an increasingly aging population who lived YOLO for 40 years and will be requiring more medical care than previous generations.

- Encourage contributions to Health Savings Accounts since contributions are tax deductible

- Allow a 1% tax on existing policies that will go towards medical reimbursements for uninsured people (but every other trust fund has been raided, so it wouldn't work anyways)

- Make insurance payments healthy habits tax deductible (gym memberships, exercise equipment, etc.) to encourage healthy lifestyles and reduce the need for reactive medical care

How are those?

I would like for someone to challenge my theory that government intervention and subsidization of certain programs doesn't increase the price substantially. Once we started telling doctors what we would reimburse them under medicare, the costs started skyrocketing. The same happened with the cost of higher education too once schools realized that they could just raise the price of their school and students would just ask the government for more loans to cover it. Subsequently, both have been increasing substantially more than inflation for the past 2 decades.

 

[rokusa]

I'm trying to learn more about this but the fact that Obama and the rest of our government leaders are exempt from the ACA is a red flag. Plus, why would we want anything run by the IRS?

 

[luckyluchiano]

The only thing this has benefitted me is having one more year to stay on pops insurance. I had to take a training at work about how this is impacting our insurance and they were straight slandering ACA subliminally lol all the permiums are going up and next year when I have to get my own insurance zero deductible won't be an option

 

[girlslovewaffles]

I wanted to take this time to post a pretty unbiased summary of what Obamacare actually entails (instead of listening to media, which can be misguided).

http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/summary-of-new-health-reform-law/

 

[sreggie101]

I wanted to take this time to post a pretty unbiased summary of what Obamacare actually entails (instead of listening to media, which can be misguided).

http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/summary-of-new-health-reform-law/

i generally stay away from this thread. because i figure its more shots fired than imformative discussion, word to nh...but this is a solid post. the law is complicated, and the media just isn't cutting it nearly enough to understand it. they just report more on the slander of it all. i still want to do more research and this helps a lot.

this is a solid post. thanks, repped.

 

[ninjahood]

obama's unapproval is now 50%...when da employer mandate kicks in thats when you're really gonna see a backlash.

 

[deuce king]

^^

Thanks for that update.  Can you tell us the unapproval numbers for the Republican party as well??  Just want to make sure you keep it fair and balanced champ.

 

[rell826]

[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Lawmakers push to keep Obama's health care pledge[/h1]

By DAVID ESPO 16 hours ago

•  
•  
•  
•  

•  
•  
•  

.
View gallery

U.S. President Barack Obama gestures as he delivers remarks on the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, at an Organizing for Action grassroots supporter event in Washington, November 4, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Little more than a week after millions of consumers received health care cancellation notices, lawmakers in both parties are pushing legislation to redeem President Barack Obama's long-ago pledge that anyone liking their coverage will be allowed to keep it under the nation's controversial new law.

The result is a stern new challenge for the White House as it struggles to fix website woes for the signup portal for those seeking to enroll under the law, and simultaneously copes with angry consumers who rightly or wrongly blame "Obamacare" for cancellation letters mailed by insurers.

Democratic officials said top administration aides got a close-up view of the cancellation controversy last week, when Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said at a closed-door meeting of the party's rank and file that his son had received notice his coverage was being terminated.

In response, these officials said White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough referred to a speech Obama had made earlier in the week saying some of those losing coverage would qualify under Medicaid, some would receive federal subsidies for individual coverage, and others would have options in the so-called exchanges the law set up to allow individuals to shop for insurance. Donnelly's office declined several requests for comment. The officials who described the incident did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss a private meeting.

In the Republican-controlled House, officials say a vote is likely as early as next week on a bill to let insurers continue selling any individual policies that were in effect on Jan. 1, 2013, even if they provide coverage deemed insufficient under Obamacare.

The measure, drafted by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and backed by roughly 100 fellow Republicans, would remain in effect throughout 2014, after which the issue would presumably be reviewed.

"Despite the president's repeated promise of 'if you like your plan, you can keep it,' many Americans are now learning the sad reality that their current plan will no longer exist beginning on January 1," Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement when he announced his legislation last week.

"This legislation is about providing folks the peace of mind that they will be allowed to keep their current coverage if they so choose."

While Upton's legislation permits insurers to sell existing coverage plans that would otherwise be banned, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced legislation during the day to go one step further by requiring it.

Aides said that under her measure, insurance companies would be obliged to continue offering existing paying customers continued coverage under any plans in effect at the end of 2013. No new consumers could enroll.

"A promise was made that if you like your health plan, you can keep it - and I will do everything I can to see that the promise is kept," said Landrieu, who is gearing up for what is expected to be a challenging re-election campaign next year.

In a statement, Landrieu added that "Many people may find better plans in the marketplaces that offer superior coverage for them at a good value and at a potentially lower cost. But if people want to keep their current plans, they should be able to do so."

Her measure also requires insurers to explain areas in which the coverage falls short of the law's requirements, and notify consumers they may be able to find an alternative plan that meets the requirements.

The White House declined comment on the two bills.

Both measures are designed to cut through a complicated system in which some plans for individuals that fall short of coverage standards are allowed to continue under Obamacare, while others are not.

In general, individual coverage plans in effect on the date the legislation was enacted, March 23, 2010, may continue to be sold, regardless of their coverage levels. There are exceptions, though, including plans that significantly increase costs to consumers through higher deductibles, copayments or other steps.

According to an explanation published by Families USA, an increase in deductibles above medical inflation plus 15 percentage points would disqualify a plan from continued sale, for example.

Under current law, plans that went into effect after March 23, 2010 and fall short of the law's coverage requirements may not be sold beyond the end of the year.

That means that insurance companies that began selling new policies later throughout much of 2010 or in the two following years did so presumably knowing they would have to be canceled.

The impetus to amend the law is particularly strong among Republicans, who have voted dozens of times to repeal, defund or dismantle a program they voted against unanimously.

Unlike other GOP proposals, Upton's bill could conceivably add to the overall number of individuals gaining coverage. In political terms, it allows lawmakers to recite Obama's pledge delivered before the American Medical Association in 2009. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period," he said. "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Bristol, Va., School Board Affordable Care Act could prompt leaders to hire substitute teachers from employment agency[/h1]
Proposal to contract Kelly Educational Services tabled

• Story
• Comments

Print

Create a hardcopy of this page

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

Posted: Monday, November 4, 2013 10:47 pm | Updated: 10:58 pm, Mon Nov 4, 2013.

BY DAVID MCGEE | BRISTOL HERALD COURIER

BRISTOL , Va. – City school leaders could decide next month to get substitute teachers from an employment agency due to cost concerns related to the Affordable Care Act.

On Monday, the city School Board tabled a proposal to contract with Kelly Educational Services for substitute teachers. The board is now expected to make that decision at its December meeting.

“We’ve got a tough decision to make and this is new ground for us,” Superintendent Mark Lineburg said. “We’re trying to figure out how to navigate some of our part-time employees and be fiscally prudent. Costs are going up for part-time employees with the Affordable Care Act and substitutes fall under that. We’re trying to figure out whether it’s best to keep them or to out-source them to a company that deals with substitute teachers as temporary workers.”

The division’s current budget for substitute teachers is $175,000 and is expected to rise either way, Lineburg said.

“We can do it ourselves. The impact to the budget is going to be $30,000 to $50,000. If we keep them it will cost us a little bit more,” Lineburg said.

Currently, the division has about 35 substitute teachers and uses nearly half every day, Lineburg told the board.

“The daily average for the last four years is 15. Some days, we have eight, other days we have 20. The average is 15 per day,” Lineburg said. “If we hire 15, that is our fleet. You have some people who don’t want to work every day, so we would lose those folks. Also, on days when you need 20 and you have 15, you’re short.”

Board members said the proposal has too many unanswered questions.

“I’m not comfortable to vote on it. I’m not saying it’s not the right thing to do but it seems like anytime we do something like this we lose some control,” board member Ronald Cameron said.

Chairman Tyrone Foster voiced similar concerns.

“This may be the right thing to do but I don’t personally feel comfortable voting on something where I don’t know all the answers,” Foster said.

Vice Chairwoman Beth Rhinehart asked about the qualifications and willingness of people working for a temporary agency to stand in a classroom and teach.

“I think when you put folks in front of our children, you want them to be there because that’s what they want to do,” Rhinehart said.

Because the act, also known as Obamacare, forces employers to offer health insurance, the school division has already reduced hours of those not employed full-time, Finance Director Tammy Jones said.

“This year, as a precaution, we have limited substitutes and several aide positions to 27.5 hours per week. That has caused us to be short sometimes in our classrooms,” Jones said.

Kelly was the lone firm to respond to a request for proposals, Jones said.

Lineburg said he expects the board to make its decision next month.

“There are some legitimate concerns. We’ll take our time like we’ve always done and see what’s best,” Lineburg said.

dmcgee@bristolnews.com | 276-645-2532  | Twitter: @DMcGeeBHC

[emoji]169[/emoji] 2013 TriCities.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Your browser does not support iframes.

 
Sticker shock often follows insurance cancellation

By KELLI KENNEDY
Associated Press
[table][tr][td][table][tr][td]
AP Photo/Matt Rourke[/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][table][tr][td][table][tr][td]US Video[/td][/tr][tr][td][table][tr][td]  [/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][table][tr][td][table][tr][td]  [/td][/tr][/table][table][tr][td]  [/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][table][tr][td][table][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][table][tr][td][table][tr][td]Buy AP Photo Reprints[/td][/tr][tr][td][table][tr][td]
[table][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table]
[/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table][table][tr][td][table][tr][td]  [/td][/tr][/table][/td][/tr][/table]

MIAMI (AP) -- Dean Griffin liked the health insurance he purchased for himself and his wife three years ago and thought he'd be able to keep the plan even after the federal Affordable Care Act took effect.

But the 64-year-old recently received a letter notifying him the plan was being canceled because it didn't cover certain benefits required under the law.

The Griffins, who live near Philadelphia on the Delaware border, pay $770 monthly for their soon-to-be-terminated health care plan with a $2,500 deductible. The cheapest plan they found on their state insurance exchange was a so-called bronze plan charging a $1,275 monthly premium with deductibles totaling $12,700. It covers only providers in Pennsylvania, so the couple wouldn't be able to see the doctors in Delaware whom they've used for more than a decade.

"We're buying insurance that we will never use and can't possibly ever benefit from. We're basically passing on a benefit to other people who are not otherwise able to buy basic insurance," said Griffin, who is retired from running an information technology company.

The Griffins are among millions of people nationwide who buy individual insurance policies and are receiving notices that those policies are being discontinued because they don't meet the higher benefit requirements of the new law.

They can buy different policies directly from insurers for 2014 or sign up for plans on state insurance exchanges. While lower-income people could see lower costs because of government subsidies, many in the middle class may get rude awakenings when they access the websites and realize they'll have to pay significantly more.

Those not eligible for subsidies generally receive more comprehensive coverage than they had under their soon-to-be-canceled policies, but they'll have to pay a lot more.

Because of the higher cost, the Griffins are considering paying the federal penalty - about $100 or 1 percent of income next year - rather than buying health insurance . They say they are healthy and don't typically run up large health care costs. Dean Griffin said that will be cheaper because it's unlikely they will get past the nearly $13,000 deductible for the coverage to kick in.

Individual health insurance policies are being canceled because the Affordable Care Act requires plans to cover certain benefits, such as maternity care, hospital visits and mental illness. The law also caps annual out-of-pocket costs consumers will pay each year.

In the past, consumers could get relatively inexpensive, bare-bones coverage, but those plans will no longer be available. Many consumers are frustrated by what they call forced upgrades as they're pushed into plans with coverage options they don't necessarily want.

Ken Davis, who manages a fast food restaurant in Austin, Texas, is recovering from sticker shock after the small-business policy offered by his employer was canceled for the same reasons individual policies are being discontinued.

His company pays about $100 monthly for his basic health plan . He said he'll now have to pay $600 monthly for a mid-tier silver plan on the state exchange. The family policy also covers his 8-year-old son. Even though the federal government is contributing a $500 subsidy, he said the $600 he's left to pay is too high. He's considering the penalty.

"I feel like they're forcing me to do something that I don't want to do or need to do," Davis, 40, said.

Owners of canceled policies have a few options. They can stay in the same plan for the same price for one more year if they have one of the few plans that were grandfathered in. They can buy a similar plan with upgraded benefits that meets the new standards - likely at a significant cost increase. Or, if they make less than $45,960 for a single adult or $94,200 for a family of four, they may qualify for subsidies.

Just because a policy doesn't comply with the law doesn't mean consumers will get cancellation letters. They may get notices saying existing policies are being amended with new benefits and will come with higher premiums. Some states, including Virginia and Kentucky, required insurers to cancel old policies and start from scratch instead of beefing up existing ones.

It's unclear how many individual plans are being canceled - no one agency keeps track. But it's likely in the millions. Insurance industry experts estimate that about 14 million people, or 5 percent of the total market for health care coverage, buy individual policies . Most people get coverage through jobs and aren't affected.

Many states require insurers to give consumers 90 days' notice before canceling plans. That means another round of cancellation letters will go out in March and again in May.

Experts haven't been able to predict how many will pay more or less under the new, upgraded plans. An older policyholder with a pre-existing condition may find that premiums go down, and some will qualify for subsidies.

In California, about 900,000 people are expected to lose existing plans, but about a third will be eligible for subsidies through the state exchange, said Anne Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the exchange, called Covered California. Most canceled plans provided bare-bones coverage, she said.

"They basically had plans that had gaping holes in the coverage. They would be surprised when they get to the emergency room or the doctor's office, some of them didn't have drug coverage or preventive care," Gonzalez said.

About 330,000 Floridians received cancellation notices from the state's largest insurer, Florida Blue. About 30,000 have plans that were grandfathered in. Florida insurance officials said they're not tracking the number of canceled policies related to the new law.

National numbers are similar: 130,000 cancellations in Kentucky, 140,000 in Minnesota and as many as 400,000 in Georgia, according to officials in those states.

Cigna has sent thousands of cancellation letters to U.S. policyholders but stressed that 99 percent have the option of renewing their 2013 policy for one more year, company spokesman Joe Mondy said.

Cancellation letters are being sent only to individuals and families who purchase their own insurance. However, most policyholders in the individual market will receive some notice that their coverage will change, said Dan Mendelson, president of the market analysis firm Avalere Health.

The cancellations run counter to one of President Barack Obama's promises about his health care overhaul: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan."

Philip Johnson, 47, of Boise, Idaho, was shocked when his cancellation notice arrived last month. The gift-shop owner said he'd spent years arranging doctors covered by his insurer for him, his wife and their two college-age students.

After browsing the state exchange, he said he thinks he'll end up paying lower premiums but higher deductibles. He said the website didn't answer many of his questions, such as which doctors take which plans.

"I was furious because I spent a lot of time and picked a plan that all my doctors accepted," Johnson said. "Now I don't know what doctors are going to take what. No one mentioned that for the last three years when they talked about how this was going to work."

You were warned for years about this. Provide an incentive for graduating doctors to become general physicians as opposed to becoming specialists. No one wants to do close to a decade's worth of school residency included just to be underpaid and mandated by the government as to what they can and can't do.

[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Affordable Care Act Could Be Further Hamstrung By Shortage Of Doctors[/h1][h4]At Current Rate, As Many As 52,000 Primary Care Physicians Needed By 2025[/h4][h6]November 4, 2013 6:37 PM[/h6]
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A doctor shortage is threatening to make the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act even more difficult — and it could create lines for care and services.

New Yorkers are notorious for wanting things immediately, and that includes medical care.

But even doctors who support Obamacare say there could be delays due to more patients and fewer doctors, CBS 2’s **** Brennan reported Monday.

“It’s like shopping during Christmas time. I mean, you’re going to have a tough time if you have all of these people demanding services at the same time,” said Dr. Steven Lamm of the NYU School of Medicine.

Lamm said the Affordable Care Act could mean an explosion of demand for doctors and services, but will the system be able to handle it?

“I think the concern would be that the system will be overwhelmed, that there will be a greater demand that we can meet in a quality fashion and that we will have to delay services for a lot of individuals,” Lamm said.

Right now, there is already a shortage of 20,000 doctors nationwide, and with healthcare expansion, plus increasing population, there will be a need for about 52,000 primary care doctors by 2025.

This while only 20 percent of new doctors become primary care physicians and the new landscape has older doctors bailing, Brennan reported.

“Doctors are planning to retire. Anybody who is anywhere near retirement age is talking about retirement. … There’s just too much going on,” said Dr. Sam Unterricht of the New York State Medical Society.

Others fear that centralizing medical care will squeeze out small independent doctor groups, groups that insurers claim are more expensive, in favor of large centralized care.

“It will be inferior care. They will end up going to clinics, to situations where they don’t have their own private physician. When they go to hospitals they are not going to know any of doctors who are taking care of them,” cardiologist Dr. David Hess said.

Doctors say one solution could be a quick infusion of residents.

“They are not training enough residents. The number of medical students has increased a little bit, but the number of residency spots has not. They’ve kept the number of residency spots frozen for, I think, 13 years now,” Unterricht said.

Just by sheer numbers, doctor retirements will increase. Nearly half right now are over the age of 50, and the American Medical Association says nurses will also be in short supply, Brennan reported.

 

[rell826]

[h2]  [/h2]

[h2]Obamacare: Unfair to the young middle class, punished enough already[/h2]
By Matthew Fleischer, guest blogger

8:50 PM PDT, October 29, 2013

The Obama administration came out with a report Monday arguing that 1 million single adults between the ages of 18 and 35 will be eligible for an Obamacare insurance plan costing less than $50 a month.

That’s news to me.

I’m a healthy 34-year-old with a taxable income hovering right around the Obamacare subsidy level who, for the last several years, has purchased a relatively inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plan from Blue Shield. I get to see the doctor four times a year for a $30 co-pay, and I won’t have to spend the rest of my life working off the debt if I get hit by a bus.

Last month, however, I received a letter from my insurance company informing me that my plan was “no longer available” due to “new requirements for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.” I am being funneled into the closest equivalent plan under the new California health exchange, and my monthly premium is going to rise by nearly 43% to $214 a month.  

My old plan was as bare-bones as they came, so I assumed that even though the new plan would cost more, my coverage would improve under Obamacare, at least marginally.

It did not.

Under my old plan, my maximum out-of-pocket expense was $4,900. Under the new plan, I’m on the hook for up to $6,350. Copays for my doctor visits will double. For urgent-care visits, they will quadruple. Though slightly cheaper plans exist if I decide to shop around on the exchange, I will lose my dental coverage should I switch.

Needless to say, I am not pleased.  

Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.

Supporters of Obamacare note that young people have been footing the bill for the older generation for decades through programs like Social Security and Medicare. You pay when you’re young and reap the benefits as you grow older.

Both of those programs, however, are public, with no profit motive. They are both funded by payroll taxes, which, when I see them deducted every month, I don’t have to worry about them being funneled to the pockets of greedy insurance CEOs through creative accounting measures.

Payroll taxes are also collected from almost every wage-earner. With Obamacare, however, people with insurance through their jobs are insulated from the costs imposed on those who shop for individual polices. And most of them will be able to keep their group plans.

Older people in the individual market, meanwhile, may see their premiums go down, regardless of how well-off they may be. That’s because Obamacare mandates that older people can’t pay more than three times the rate of younger members of the pool.

Even the young, healthy and wealthy really don’t have much of a stake in paying for Obamacare. A 43% healthcare increase to a millionaire does not have the same impact as it does on someone making $45,000.

Backers of Obamacare also note that although young healthy people are being asked to sacrifice, they are the ones most likely to be eligible for a subsidized plan. But what exactly does that mean? According to Covered California’s online calculator, were I to make $30,000 (hardly rolling in dough), I would be eligible for a subsidy of $40 a month.

I would still be paying more than I am now for substandard health insurance.

What I mean by substandard is this. We’ve been hearing people complain that the Obamacare-approved policies cover too much, not too little. That’s part of the reason premiums are higher. But from my view, a higher monthly premium along with higher copays create a disincentive. Paying more to see a doctor means there’s less chance I’'ll use that service unless I’m absolutely desperate.

All of this isn’t simply idle hand-wringing. If young healthy people like myself feel we’re being taken advantage of, and opt out of purchasing insurance -- paying the penalty instead -- the healthcare exchanges will collapse. (The penalty in year one for opting out is only $95 or 1% of your salary, whichever is higher -- far less than the cost of even the most basic insurance plan.)

When Obamacare comes fully online, it will do wonders to provide healthcare for people who were not eligible for Medicaid but still could not afford health insurance. If this system is going to be sustainable, however, we’re going to need to find a way to get older and wealthier Americans to chip in more. Because, right now, it’s young, middle-class people just outside the subsidy range who are biting the bullet. Young, middle-class people who already bore the highest toll in the recent financial collapse, who have seen our wages sliced and our job prospects dwindle.

You can only ride our backs for so long before we’re going to tell you enough is enough.

Of course the young middle class would get punished. Don't we always? This is what this age group gets for voting in this man not once but twice because he came off as cool and hung out with Hollywood celebrities. Should have taken a look at his policies.
[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Doctors Dropped By Insurers As Affordable Care Act Rollout Continues[/h1][h4]Heart Patient: 'I Just Can't Believe It Because This Is The Man You Rely On'[/h4][h6]November 1, 2013 6:36 PM[/h6]
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – A Congressional panel has held hearings this week on the troubles with the Affordable Care Act website that went live a month ago.

Notes given to the House Ways and Means Committee show only six people were able to sign up on the first day and 248 by the second day.

Healthcare.gov has been plagued with problems since it was launched on Oct. 1.

As many as 3 million Americans have recently learned they will lose their current policies because they don’t meet the standards of the new health care law.

As CBS 2′s **** Brennan reported, some are being forced to get a new doctor to remain covered.

It appears insurers are trying to cut their costs in light of the coming health care changes next year.

Doctors are getting bumped off plans and their patients are getting worried, Brennan reported.

“I just can’t believe it because this is the man you rely on,” heart patient Leonard Goldberg, 82, said.

“It hurts, it hurts inside and it’s a terrible feeling to think that you can’t get what you want,” Tony Molesphini, 83, said.

“Nobody wants to die, me above all people,” 79-year-old Jim Heffernan said.

The three men with heart trouble say their biggest problem is losing the doctor they’ve had for decades, and they fear for their future.

Dr. David Hess, a renowned Long Island cardiologist, got notice from Oxford UnitedHealthcare that he was being dropped from their group after a decade.

“For the past week, I’ve got frantic phone calls, about six to 10 patients per day calling up in hysteria saying that ‘you’ve been my doctor for upwards of 20 years, what am I gonna do without you?’” he told Brennan.

This is not an isolated incident. It has been happening all around the country, Brennan reported.

“There are many thousands of doctors involved,” Dr. Sam Untericht of the New York State Medical Society said.

Insurers are trying to cut doctors who may run up costs, Untericht said.

“They claim that they that this is a way of cutting costs which they have to do because they are getting a reduction in their reimbursement for the Medicare Advantage plans due to the Affordable Care Act,” he told Brennan.

“I’m sure I have greater expenses because the patients that I take care of are very ill,” Dr. Hess said.

War veteran Leonard Goldberg said he’s not sure what he’s going to do but said he’ll figure it out somehow.

“Especially if people are our age, we don’t want to get too excited, we don’t want to get uptight. It’s not as bad as going to Korea during the Korean War, but it’s tough,” Goldberg said.

Dr. Hess is appealing the decision.

CBS 2 reached out to UnitedHealthcare , but they did not offer a comment.

[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Obamacare 'War Room' docs: We're concerned next media story is some consumers getting on website and finding fewer options, higher prices[/h1]
By CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper

Washington (CNN) - Officials expressed concern that the next shoe to drop in the evolving story about the Affordable Care Act would be disappointment from consumers once they are able to get on the troubled HealthCare.gov website – disappointment because of sticker shock and limited choice, according to a new document obtained by CNN.

“Mike described a general concern of PM (plan management team): getting to the point where the website is functioning properly and individuals begin to select plans; the media attention will follow individuals to plan selection and their ultimate choices; and, in some cases, there will be fewer options than would be desired to promote consumer choice and an ideal shopping experience. Additionally, in some cases there will be relatively high cost plans,” say the notes from the Obama administration’s Obamacare 'War Room' from one week ago.

Plan management team is a reference to those individuals in the Obama administration tasked with standing up the president's health care law at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

The discussion appeared to be in reference to an October 24 story by The New York Times titled “Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas.”

“While competition is intense in many populous regions, rural areas and small towns have far fewer carriers offering plans in the law’s online exchanges," the newspaper reported. "Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating. The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices.”

Read: For many, Obama's promise of health care choice does not ring true

Other notes from the war room meeting describe specific “problem plans,” and a problem with the site that prevents certification, perhaps due to a misspelling on the website.

“These are notes taken by contractors, they are not official agency positions," Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said in an e-mail.

Peters also highlighted affordable options for consumers, noting "Nearly all consumers will have a choice of two or more health insurance issuers, and often many more. About 95% of consumers live in states with average premiums below earlier estimates."

[h1]  [/h1]

[h1]Oregon's State Exchange May Be Worse Than HealthCare.gov[/h1]

by Kristian Foden-Vencil

November 04, 2013 4:31 PM

from

[h3]  [/h3]

•  
•  
•  

Matthew Collier, an uninsured entrepreneur, speaks at a rally sponsored by Cover Oregon in Portland, Ore., on Oct. 1.
Don Ryan/AP

As the federal government consumes humble pie over failures in the health insurance exchanges, some states that have set up their own exchanges are also struggling. Oregon has yet to one single person, and it's been reduced to pawing through paper applications to figure out eligibility.

When Cover Oregon opened Oct. 1, executive director Rocky King was excited. He'd been preparing for years. "Day one, we are accepting applications. And staff at the Oregon Health Authority and Cover Oregon are ready to process those applications," he said on opening day.

Back then, King conceded there were still glitches with the , but he said that by mid-to-late October they'd be worked out. Now it's November, and it's clear that a quick fix is not in the cards. So Cover Oregon has turned to old-fashioned paper applications. People can either download one off the website, or have somebody walk them through it.

NPR made a request to visit a call center to see the process but was turned down for security reasons.

Instead, spokeswoman Amy Fauver explained how it is working. "We have on our website right now a place where people who just want to wait, who just want to do it electronically, can give us their e-mail address, and we will e-mail them when the system is fully functional," she said.

Cover Oregon's website asks people to fill out a paper , and then submit it electronically or by mail.
http://www.coveroregon.com/

"We also hear from a lot of people who are really chomping at the bit to . And they want to send in their paper application as soon as they can. Either way is fine with us."

Some potential customers are frustrated, though.

Amanda Thomas lives in Oregon but works for an Australian company putting up science exhibitions. As an independent contractor, she has to buy her own health insurance. She says she didn't have good luck on the site when she tried to sign up. Instead, she was guided to a list of .

"What I ended up doing was calling one of the brokers, literally just picked one off the screen at random, called him and he explained the whole situation in much more detail and much more understandably," says Thomas. "And his advice was wait and sign up later."

The paper is 20 pages long and asks for everything from names and the number of people in your household to pension contributions and alimony payments.

Cover Oregon's Fauver says applicants need to fill it in and send it back. "And then we do an eligibility determination in house, on their behalf."

That means Cover Oregon staff will comb through documents to determine if the person is eligible for a or for Medicaid. The sporadic functionality of the federal government's HealthCare.gov website means this eligibility check is a problem. But Cover Oregon's software is also troublesome.

[h3]  [/h3][h3]  [/h3]

"When we run a test case, a test household to determine eligibility, most of the time it works just fine. But there are times when it doesn't," Fauver says. "It tends to happen more often with more complex households."

When the computer system is working, Fauver says that applicants get one of three responses: eligible, not eligible or pending — meaning further communication with Cover Oregon staff is necessary. "We need to get to a place that we are assured that when the system gives a determination, that it's correct," she says.

[h3]  [/h3][h3]  [/h3]

Cover Oregon hopes to avoid what happened to their northern neighbor. Washington State's exchange recently informed 8,000 applicants that they did not, in fact, qualify for as large a tax credit as they'd been told.

But back at Cover Oregon, let's say everything is fine and an applicant is eligible for a tax credit. Then, says Fauver, "We send them a packet that includes the amount of the tax credit; the different plans that are available to them; and the costs of those plans and a form that they can to say, 'I want plan A.' Then they sign that form and send it back to us."

All of this on paper.

Cover Oregon's current guess on when the site will be fully running is by the end of November. So far, it has a stack of 7,300 paper applications, with more coming in each day. It has 45 days to process each one, but it hopes to do that more quickly.

 

[nazdrowie]

Jill Stein 2016?

 

[andycrazn]

his policies suck, i could care less if it was a robot running da white house.

as soon as i saw him try to pass cap and trade in 2010 i knew it was bout that European style socialist cloth...

All his policies suck?

What about the tax policy he passed to help those taxpayers that short sale their homes and were able to cancel their debt? The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act and Debt Cancellation. That didn't help millions of taxpayers during the housing crisis?

that actually benefited the bankers more than the taxpayers.

 

[andycrazn]

 

[andycrazn]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-04/healthcare-america-countless-layers-grift-and-counter-grift

Healthcare In America: Countless Layers Of Grift And Counter-Grift

The ObamaCare website rollout fiasco, joined by the bait-and-switch “You can keep your current insurance (not)” tempest, obscure the fundamental quandary about so-called health-care in America: that it is a gigantic racket structured to allow countless layers of grift and counter-grift. The end product of all that artifice is that medical care costs twice as much in America as any other civilized country, and that it has to be operated by a cruel and despotic matrix of poorly coordinated bureaucracies that commonly leave people more disabled financially than the diseases that brought them into the system.

ObamaCare was designed to work like a giant roll of duct tape that would allow the current cast of characters in charge (Democratic Progressives) to pretend that the system could keep going a few years longer. But it looks like it has already blown out the patch on the manifold and is getting ready to throw a rod — which duct tape will not avail to fix.

I had three major surgeries (hip, open heart, spine) the past year and paid attention to the statements that rolled in from my then-insurer, Blue Shield (the policy was cancelled in October). These documents were always advertised as “this is not a bill” and that was technically true, but it deflected attention from what it really was, a record of negotiated scams between the “providers” (doctors and hospitals) and the insurance company.



There was never any discussion (or offer of discussion) of the cost of care before a procedure. When asked, doctors commonly pretend not to know what their work costs. Why is that? It’s not to spare the patient’s feelings. It’s because sick people are hostages and both the doctors and the hospital management know they will agree to anything that will get them through the crisis of illness. This sets up a situation that allows the “providers” to blindside the patient with charges after the fact.



My hip “revision” operation was necessary because my original implant was a defective (“innovative” circa 2003) metal-on-metal joint that released metal fragments into my system and it had to be removed. The stated charge for replacement part — a simple two piece bearing made of metal and plastic, about the size of tangerine — was $14,000. Blue Shield “negotiated” the price down to about $7,000. If you go to the websites of any of the manufacturers of these things, you will not see any suggested retail or wholesale price. The markup on these things must be out of this world. Cars come with four ball joints that carry roughly the same time warrantee, and they come with a staggering array of “extras”— engines, transmissions, air-conditioning, seats, air-bags, and radios. The pattern was similar for the other surgeries and what they entailed. I ended up paying five-figures out-of-pocket. Lucky for me that I saved some money before this all happened. I don’t have kids so I haven’t been paying extortionate college tuitions during my peak income years.



All the surgeries I had required hospital stays. For the hip op, I was in for a day and a half in a non-special bed (no fancy hookups). The charge was $23,000 per day. For what? They took my blood pressure nine times. I got about six bad meals. The line charge on the Blue Shield statement said “room and board.” It would be a joke if this extortion wasn’t multiplied millions of times a day across the nation. Citizen-hostages obviously don’t know where to begin to unravel this skein of dreadful rackets. If you think it’s possible to have a productive conversation with an insurance company rep at the other end of the phone line, then you’re going to be disappointed. You might as well be talking to a third-sub-deputy under-commissar in the Soviet motor vehicle bureau.

This ghastly matrix of corruption really only has two ways to go. It can completely implode in a fairly short time frame (say, five years, tops), or we can, by some miracle of political will, get our priorities straight and sweep away all the layers of racketeering with a single-payer system. The evidence in other civilized countries is not so encouraging. England’s National Health Service has degenerated into a two layer system of half-assed soviet-style medicine for the proles and concierge service for the rich. France’s system works more democratically, but the nation is going bankrupt and eventually their health care network will fall apart. The Scandinavian countries have relatively tiny populations. I don’t know, frankly, how the Germans are doing.

Here in the USA, you can make arguments for putting a greater share of public money into a single-payer system. For instance, if we redirected the money spent on our stupid military adventures and closed some of the countless redundant bases we run overseas. That would be a biggie. Given the current choke-hold of the military-industrial complex on our politicians, I wouldn’t expect much traction there.

You can argue that nobody complains about government spending on the highway system, so why should “the people” complain about organizing a medical system that really works? Obviously, there’s no consensus to make that happen. Too many doctors want to drive BMWs. Too many insurance executives and hospital administrators want to make multi-million dollar salaries. Too many lobbyist parasites and lawyers are feeding off that revenue stream. Too many politicians with gold-plated health insurance coverage don’t want to change the current distribution of goodies. End-of-story, as the late Tony Soprano used to say.

It’s the old quandary of fire or ice… which way do you want to go? Since I’m interested in reality-based outcomes, my bet would be on implosion. In any case, several of the other systems that currently support the activities of our society are scheduled for near-term implosion, too. That would be the banking-finance system, the energy supply system, and the industrial agriculture system. As those things wind down or crash, you can be sure that everything connected with them will be affected, so the chance that we could mount a real national health care system is, in my opinion, zero.

The ObamaCare duct-taped system will go down. The big hospitals, HMOs, insurers, pharma companies will all starve and shrivel. Like all things in the emergent new paradigm, they will reorganize on a small and much simpler basis. Everyone will make less money and high-tech medicine will probably dwindle for all but a very few… and for them, only for a while. Eventually, we’ll re-set to local clinic style medicine with far fewer resources, specialties, and miracle cures. There will be a whole lot less aggravation, though, and people may die more peacefully.

Finally, there’s the pathetic American lumpen-public of our day itself, steadily committing suicide en masse by corn byproducts, the three-hundred pounders lumbering down the Wal-Mart aisles in search of the latest designer nacho. What can you do about such a people, except let fate take them where it will?

 

[Canadian Destroyer]

Looked into it, meh, Would come out to about the same as the Aetna insurance I have now thru my job.

 

[crcballer55]

 

his policies suck, i could care less if it was a robot running da white house.

as soon as i saw him try to pass cap and trade in 2010 i knew it was bout that European style socialist cloth...

All his policies suck?

What about the tax policy he passed to help those taxpayers that short sale their homes and were able to cancel their debt? The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act and Debt Cancellation. That didn't help millions of taxpayers during the housing crisis?

Obama was in office in 2007?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Forgiveness_Debt_Relief_Act_of_2007

Does this mean that Obama cut taxes too since he extended the Bush tax cuts?

 

[rico x hood]

He actually raised taxes by letting the payroll tax cut expire.

 

[sundoobie]

that actually benefited the bankers more than the taxpayers.

OK and?

A friend of mine lost her home in 2012, and received a 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt, for over 150,000. She is broke, lost all her savings cause she used it to purchase the home, and you're telling me this law to forgive homeowner's debt didn't benefit her? Or are you saying she rather pay income tax on 150K? That's the thing with you guys.. never looking at this stuff on a personal level and instead focusing all your time and energy arguing on stupid ideology.

Obama was in office in 2007?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage_Forgiveness_Debt_Relief_Act_of_2007

Does this mean that Obama cut taxes too since he extended the Bush tax cuts?

This is how you can tell which members clearly just HATE Obama

http://www.irs.com/articles/mortgage-debt-relief-act-extended

On January 3rd, 2013, President Obama signed The American Taxpayer Relief Act which extends the deadline of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act to December 31st, 2013. If the Mortgage Debt Relief Act had expired, any amount of cancelled debt would be considered taxable income for IRS purposes. The Mortgage Debt Relief Act was set to expire on December 31st, 2012.

And YES OF COURSE Obama cut taxes too. He EXTENDED Bush's tax cuts didn't he?