President Obama announces health law fix

[Jingthing]

So that's the program then? Getting stuck at Obama Derangement Syndrome and to heck with actually DEALING with the problems? Typical and yet so sad.

[kennedy]

Obamacare is the 2013-2014 Republican updated claim of W. M. D. Stay tuned...

[F430murci]

That's not exactly correct, but it is pretty close. You can still purchase insurance, but if you are not working it is pretty expensive.

Not exactly. Before Obamacare, it was commonly impossible for those with certain common preexisting conditions to purchase ANY private health insurance policy. Obamacare fixes that and yes that is a BIG deal. Obamacare also in non-obstructionist states deals with the cost issue for the less wealthy, with expanded Medicaid or DIRECT SUBSIDIES for private insurance premiums.

Most people have pre-existing conditions of some type. Insurance companies may issue policy by excluding certain pre-existing conditions or place certain timing provisions in the policy before covering.

If you are uncovered, get something bad, and then expect an insurance company (private or government to cover you ) you are an irresponsible freeloader. This is comparable to getting into a car accident while uninsured, getting car insurance after the accident and expecting the car insurance to cover you when you get sued for the accident. Ridiculous!

Jingthing:

Have you attempted to obtain a policy through the exchange yet?

I spoke to doctor on Tuesday that is disabled due to a weird spinal injury. She can ambulate somewhat, but has difficulty and requires a lot of therapy and medical care. She is on disability from her job as a surgeon.

Her private insurance just sent her a cancellation notice (thank you Bama care). Her soon to be cancelled policy was $ 300 a month and had a 90/10 co pay on major up to $3,000 out of pocket and a co pay for office visits of $ 10 in net work and $ 25 out of net work.

Her Obama care quote was $ 800 a month and coverage does not even kick in for anything (major medical or doctor visits) until she has paid out of pocket $ 5,000. The coverage is 80/20 after her $ 5,000 out of pocket and it excludes many treatments she receives. She calculated that she will now be out of pocket $ 30,000 a year with the so called affordable health coverage.

Bama Care is Not Insurance

Everyone with whom I have spoke are being quoted policies with first $ 4,000 and up out of pocket and not covered. This is not insurance. This is self insurance with a premium.

Jingthing:

You drank the cool aide and are blind as to how this is shaking out. Perhaps part of the problem is that costs are skyrocketing and coverage is being reduced in part because they now realize that the Obama care is primarily going to end up with the high risk uninsurable types. These are also the people that can least afford it so I have to agree that in theory it sounded good, in application it is a complete and utter failure.

[Jingthing]

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

Also don't even try to go there and suggest that I love Obamacare. I want nationalized health care! I just think Obamacare is move forward from the totally unacceptable status quo.

[F430murci]

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

What conditions? If you are terminal, yes . . . no one will and should write you insurance and you should not have let your early policy lapse.

If you had a heart issue and have recovered, you can get coverage. You, however, cannot have no insurance, go the doctor, be told you need heart surgery, and then go to an insurance company knowing you need heart surgery and expect them to cover it. That is bunk.

If you were too poor to have coverage before being diagnosed, you could have been on a state program like TennCare or Medicaid and Medicare for FREE and not be out of pocket anything.

If you were not sufficiently poor to be covered by free state or federal coverage, but were to irresponsible to budget and pay for insurance prior to your horrible diagnosis, then it is freeloading to expect to obtain insurance have this covered only after you found out about it.

Again, is it right for someone to be irresponsible and drive without insurance, have a wreck, and then go buy insurance with the expectation that the insurance company (and other insureds) will pay for that loss? Why should health insurance be any different?

[F430murci]

Responsible people that budget money, work hard and keep insurance in place even when it is not needed do not want nationalized health care. Why should I, or my doctor friend, now pay $ 10,000 to $ 20,000 more a year so irresponsible people can get health care coverage.

The problem is, this nationalized health care stuff penalizes those who are responsible, go to school, make good grades and work their tails off in life. The US should be encouraging people to get education, get jobs, be productive save money and do the right things. Nationalized anything is contrary to that policy and promotes laziness. Move to Russia or China if you want Nationalized this or that . . .

[beechguy]

As a non-US citizen I find it disconcerting that many US citizens appear to rely on their employer for their healthcare. No job - no healthcare. Is that correct? I'm looking for facts and am not shit-stirring.

No, that is not correct. Many people take advantage of insurance provided by their employer as a benefit. If terminated, you can maintain the coverage by paying the premium yourself,f for a defined period of time under the COBRA plan. Many people do that, until they can find other employment, or purchase their own private plan. Cost is pretty much the only negative factor.

[Jingthing]

As a non-US citizen I find it disconcerting that many US citizens appear to rely on their employer for their healthcare. No job - no healthcare. Is that correct? I'm looking for facts and am not shit-stirring.

No, that is not correct. Many people take advantage of insurance provided by their employer as a benefit. If terminated, you can maintain the coverage by paying the premium yourself,f for a defined period of time under the COBRA plan. Many people do that, until they can find other employment, or purchase their own private plan. Cost is pretty much the only negative factor.

Cobra runs out and yes it is too expensive for most people between jobs. These days millions of middle aged people have been out of work for over five years and will probably never work again so tying health care to employment or previous employment is just uncivilized.

[Jingthing]

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

What conditions? If you are terminal, yes . . . no one will and should write you insurance and you should not have let your early policy lapse.

If you had a heart issue and have recovered, you can get coverage. You, however, cannot have no insurance, go the doctor, be told you need heart surgery, and then go to an insurance company knowing you need heart surgery and expect them to cover it. That is bunk.

If you were too poor to have coverage before being diagnosed, you could have been on a state program like TennCare or Medicaid and Medicare for FREE and not be out of pocket anything.

If you were not sufficiently poor to be covered by free state or federal coverage, but were to irresponsible to budget and pay for insurance prior to your horrible diagnosis, then it is freeloading to expect to obtain insurance have this covered only after you found out about it.

Again, is it right for someone to be irresponsible and drive without insurance, have a wreck, and then go buy insurance with the expectation that the insurance company (and other insureds) will pay for that loss? Why should health insurance be any different?

I can assure you that you have no clue about these issues. I am not going to give you a list of my very common (and actually easily managed) chronic health conditions on a public forum, mate, but trust me they are VERY COMMON things that huge percentages of people over 40 have!

There is a good reason Obamacare's addressing the preexisting condition thing is indeed still VERY POPULAR (as opposed to the whole program) and that is because the majority of Americans know exactly what I am talking about either personally or through people close to them.

IF the republicans are actually serious about an alternative proposal (they obviously are not) they are going to HAVE to ACTUALLY address that aspect as well. Americans EXPECT that now no matter what.

[F430murci]

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

What conditions? If you are terminal, yes . . . no one will and should write you insurance and you should not have let your early policy lapse.

If you had a heart issue and have recovered, you can get coverage. You, however, cannot have no insurance, go the doctor, be told you need heart surgery, and then go to an insurance company knowing you need heart surgery and expect them to cover it. That is bunk.

If you were too poor to have coverage before being diagnosed, you could have been on a state program like TennCare or Medicaid and Medicare for FREE and not be out of pocket anything.

If you were not sufficiently poor to be covered by free state or federal coverage, but were to irresponsible to budget and pay for insurance prior to your horrible diagnosis, then it is freeloading to expect to obtain insurance have this covered only after you found out about it.

Again, is it right for someone to be irresponsible and drive without insurance, have a wreck, and then go buy insurance with the expectation that the insurance company (and other insureds) will pay for that loss? Why should health insurance be any different?

I can assure you that you have no clue about these issues. I am not going to give you a list of my very common (and actually easily managed) chronic health conditions on a public forum, mate, but trust me they are VERY COMMON things that huge percentages of people over 40 have!

There is a good reason Obamacare's addressing the preexisting condition thing is indeed still VERY POPULAR (as opposed to the whole program) and that is because the majority of Americans know exactly what I am talking about either personally or through people close to them.

IF the republicans are actually serious about an alternative proposal (they obviously are not) they are going to HAVE to ACTUALLY address that aspect as well. Americans EXPECT that now no matter what.

Jingthing:

I know a little about health insurance.

I have litigated many complex insurance coverage issues on behalf of both insurance companies and, on many occasions, the insureds. These cases almost always revolve around an exclusions or policy language ambiguities regarding exclusions of certain conditions or pre-existing conditions. I have also handled class action suits regarding disability policies issues to doctors regarding exclusions related to pre-existing health conditions. To fully litigate these areas, I had to familiarize myself with under writing practices and standard form policy language throughout the industry.

I don't know everything, but I am certainly not clueless.

[NeverSure]

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

Also don't even try to go there and suggest that I love Obamacare. I want nationalized health care! I just think Obamacare is move forward from the totally unacceptable status quo.

You can't get me to agree to socialism until you show me one country where it is working and will continue to work long term.

All of the socialist Western countries have some serious problems with their health care. It may be rationing, long wait times, restricted treatments due to age, problems financing it, bureaucratic fumbling and waste, or something else, but I predict the failure of the NHS due to too many freeloaders swamping a limited system.

Defend it all you want but it will fail. In Canada they are now letting private clinics for those who have the money to pay open and operate, as an alternative choice to the "free" health care offered to the masses. So the rich are still privileged. The PM of one of their provinces created a scandal by flying to the US to have his heart surgery, paid out of his own pocket when he could have gotten it "free" in Canada. How come?

Stay tuned about the long term success/failure of socialism. I haven't seen it work yet.

[NeverSure]

That's not exactly correct, but it is pretty close. You can still purchase insurance, but if you are not working it is pretty expensive.

Not exactly. Before Obamacare, it was commonly impossible for those with certain common preexisting conditions to purchase ANY private health insurance policy. Obamacare fixes that and yes that is a BIG deal. Obamacare also in non-obstructionist states deals with the cost issue for the less wealthy, with expanded Medicaid or DIRECT SUBSIDIES for private insurance premiums.

Most people have pre-existing conditions of some type. Insurance companies may issue policy by excluding certain pre-existing conditions or place certain timing provisions in the policy before covering.

If you are uncovered, get something bad, and then expect an insurance company (private or government to cover you ) you are an irresponsible freeloader. This is comparable to getting into a car accident while uninsured, getting car insurance after the accident and expecting the car insurance to cover you when you get sued for the accident. Ridiculous!

Jingthing:

Have you attempted to obtain a policy through the exchange yet?

I spoke to doctor on Tuesday that is disabled due to a weird spinal injury. She can ambulate somewhat, but has difficulty and requires a lot of therapy and medical care. She is on disability from her job as a surgeon.

Her private insurance just sent her a cancellation notice (thank you Bama care). Her soon to be cancelled policy was $ 300 a month and had a 90/10 co pay on major up to $3,000 out of pocket and a co pay for office visits of $ 10 in net work and $ 25 out of net work.

Her Obama care quote was $ 800 a month and coverage does not even kick in for anything (major medical or doctor visits) until she has paid out of pocket $ 5,000. The coverage is 80/20 after her $ 5,000 out of pocket and it excludes many treatments she receives. She calculated that she will now be out of pocket $ 30,000 a year with the so called affordable health coverage.

Bama Care is Not Insurance

Everyone with whom I have spoke are being quoted policies with first $ 4,000 and up out of pocket and not covered. This is not insurance. This is self insurance with a premium.

Jingthing:

You drank the cool aide and are blind as to how this is shaking out. Perhaps part of the problem is that costs are skyrocketing and coverage is being reduced in part because they now realize that the Obama care is primarily going to end up with the high risk uninsurable types. These are also the people that can least afford it so I have to agree that in theory it sounded good, in application it is a complete and utter failure.

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

Also don't even try to go there and suggest that I love Obamacare. I want nationalized health care! I just think Obamacare is move forward from the totally unacceptable status quo.

Please read the post above. It IS the disaster called Obamacare. It really IS that bad. And it shifts the burden of the higher costs to the individual.

Perhaps your main concern is pre-existing conditions? The US has many safety nets for those who need help. I have no problem helping those who truly need help, and that can be done without resorting to socialism. That can be done without asking the government to screw up our whole health care system and our budget (making it even worse) with Obamacare taking 1/6 of the economy and fumbling it.

Obamacare is a disaster. If we repeal it, I would be in favor of a government backed risk pool that provided insurance for pre-existing conditions if there was a test to determine if the person deserved it. By that I mean I have no interest in bailing out a successful businessman who just chose to take the risk for years of going uninsured, and now wants taxpayers to pay for his folly. But someone in a lower income bracket can already get Medicaid which covers pre-existing conditions, and we could put in just one more thing to help people who actually need help through no fault of their own.

It could be handled as a separate issue.

Another thing that would help is to double the number of doctors we have. The doctors' private lobbying group restricts the number of students who can go to medical school, and we have a serious shortage of doctors. Let's double the number of doctors we produce and create competition for patients. Then prices would go down and they wouldn't be so picky about who they serve, based on how much an insurance company will pay. Then we'd also have enough doctors for Medicaid patients.

[Publicus]

Really not sure that Twain, Thoreau or Dante are relevant to this discussion.

But on second thoughts you could perhaps paraphrase Thoreau's widely misquoted line: "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government"

and this could read: "Iask for, not at once no healthcare, but at once for better healthcare".

Surely the point about US healthcare is that it is a bust (literally) and utterly unsustainable, and in need of a comprehensive reworking. Obamacare is obviously not perfect by why throw baby out with the proverbial and therefore use it as a startpoint for something better?

"...why throw baby out with the proverbial and therefore use it as a startpoint for something better?"

Because it's far worse than what we had, and a massive step in the opposite direction of where we need to go. It makes the original broken system harder to fix.

I wish people (and most Americans do by now) understood that Obamacare is nothing but welfare for the big insurance companies, big pharma, the health care providers, and all other big money interests. It is a pat on the back to the big campaign contributors. It makes health insurance more expensive when it was already too expensive and it forces those costs onto the public.

How else could the stock prices for the big health insurance companies be up 200% - 300% since this law was passed? I posted a link to prove that already.

DO YOU REALLY think that something which benefits only the big cronies of the politicians and greatly increases their profits at the expense of the people is good for the people?

Really?

Anyone knows stock prices are equities and that their value increases when the value of the product increases. A greater pool of those eligible for medical insurance will predictably increase the bottom line of the providers - private enterprise - because the new law will attract more buyers of the providers' stock in volume and in value, i.e., price.

Concomitantly, all things being equal, when defense spending is decreased - as it currently is due to sequestration - the value of stock in defense companies can be expected to fall.

However, this is not the purpose or design of Prez Obama nor of the Democratic Party in initiating ObamaCare. The purpose and design is to increase the availability of medical insurance to as many Americans as possible and to provide quality insurance. The stock prices and value of insurance providers increasing is strictly a by-product, as virtually any analyst of political economy will attest.

A related question to the cynical American is whether there is diabolical scheme in the White House that has resulted in the fact that since Prez Obama took office the value of the stock market at the NYSE has doubled, adding $6.8 trillion in value to American equities investors.

And whether a grand scheme of evil is at work in the White House that since Prez Obama took office has also doubled the value of the S&P 500 index?

The new medical insurance law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, not the insurance companies direct promotion and increased value act. Another impact of the ACA is that more doctors and medical centers nationwide will get more patients and make more bucks. Not every one or every category of doctor or medical center, but that too is a fallout of the new law, not its direct intent, purpose or design.

I don't trust or like the medical insurance companies but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't follow the laws of the market in the natural order of society and the economy.

It's very likely at this point anyway that the insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the ball fumbled by the administration concerning the website by providing enrollment assistance services directly to citizens - not by signing them up directly, but by advising them of their plans and directing them to a functioning website.

(Can you believe from here in Thailand that in the law the federal website is referred to as the "hub"? The hub?! )

You are missing so many things. There is no limit on how much insurance companies can charge for this Obamacare insurance, and they have canceled about 5 million policies on ordinary citizens, and those people are finding the rates for new policies to be much higher. And this is just the start.

This program is a mandate that people must buy the insurance at whatever price the insurance company offers it at, or pay a fine. What a windfall for insurance companies.

Where are all of these new customers? The great majority of people who have signed up for Obamacare are the ones who get it cheap or for free due to low income, but it's not real insurance. It's Medicaid. Already many health care providers won't accept medicaid patients, and we have an article and a link above where many hospitals and doctors have stated that they won't accept this new Obamacare.

So with it known that medicaid doesn't pay enough to the providers causing providers to refuse it, what should we think the providers will do if millions more show up with it?

One big problem is that almost all health care providers and insurance companies are privately owned and they don't have to accept Obamacare as payment. They are already busy with patients who have the ability to pay more.

The law of supply and demand says that prices will go up for health care and insurance. The failure of this system is that it did nothing to address costs or increase supply, but rather exacerbated the problem, and it threw those costs onto the public.

As for your comments about the stock market, it has about doubled since it started recovering in 2008, but this law wasn't passed until 2010 which is where you should start your numbers. The market has gone up by about 35% since this law was passed, but the health care insurance stocks have gone up 200% - 300%. That's astonishing.

Kindly be advised I'm well aware of just about everything you stated in your post, whether it is a straight out fact, a distorted fact, or a claim. That I haven't said or discussed it all in one place doesn't necessarily mean I don't have the knowledge or awareness. Presumptiveness runs its own risks.

As to your final paragraph you misread me. I measured the doubling of both the stock market and the S&P 500 from the beginning of Prez Obama's term in office, not from the beginning of ObamaCare.

Clear thinking and clear reading is needed here along with less of one dimensional speechmaking. I myself try to stay on my soapbox and to shun the podium.

ObamaCare needs improvement, not repeal. This is the view of most Americans, as the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll released Tuesday has most recently further found - fewer than two of five Americans advocate repeal.

Let's not forget that Willard Mitt Romney and his "Repeal and Replace" campaign lost the election.

Squawking about insurance companies making profits while opposing single payer medical insurance leaves not much of anything except the old chaos.

Improvement, not repeal.

[Publicus]

Really not sure that Twain, Thoreau or Dante are relevant to this discussion.

But on second thoughts you could perhaps paraphrase Thoreau's widely misquoted line: "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government"

and this could read: "Iask for, not at once no healthcare, but at once for better healthcare".

Surely the point about US healthcare is that it is a bust (literally) and utterly unsustainable, and in need of a comprehensive reworking. Obamacare is obviously not perfect by why throw baby out with the proverbial and therefore use it as a startpoint for something better?

"...why throw baby out with the proverbial and therefore use it as a startpoint for something better?"

Because it's far worse than what we had, and a massive step in the opposite direction of where we need to go. It makes the original broken system harder to fix.

I wish people (and most Americans do by now) understood that Obamacare is nothing but welfare for the big insurance companies, big pharma, the health care providers, and all other big money interests. It is a pat on the back to the big campaign contributors. It makes health insurance more expensive when it was already too expensive and it forces those costs onto the public.

How else could the stock prices for the big health insurance companies be up 200% - 300% since this law was passed? I posted a link to prove that already.

DO YOU REALLY think that something which benefits only the big cronies of the politicians and greatly increases their profits at the expense of the people is good for the people?

Really?

Anyone knows stock prices are equities and that their value increases when the value of the product increases. A greater pool of those eligible for medical insurance will predictably increase the bottom line of the providers - private enterprise - because the new law will attract more buyers of the providers' stock in volume and in value, i.e., price.

Concomitantly, all things being equal, when defense spending is decreased - as it currently is due to sequestration - the value of stock in defense companies can be expected to fall.

However, this is not the purpose or design of Prez Obama nor of the Democratic Party in initiating ObamaCare. The purpose and design is to increase the availability of medical insurance to as many Americans as possible and to provide quality insurance. The stock prices and value of insurance providers increasing is strictly a by-product, as virtually any analyst of political economy will attest.

A related question to the cynical American is whether there is diabolical scheme in the White House that has resulted in the fact that since Prez Obama took office the value of the stock market at the NYSE has doubled, adding $6.8 trillion in value to American equities investors.

And whether a grand scheme of evil is at work in the White House that since Prez Obama took office has also doubled the value of the S&P 500 index?

The new medical insurance law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, not the insurance companies direct promotion and increased value act. Another impact of the ACA is that more doctors and medical centers nationwide will get more patients and make more bucks. Not every one or every category of doctor or medical center, but that too is a fallout of the new law, not its direct intent, purpose or design.

I don't trust or like the medical insurance companies but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't follow the laws of the market in the natural order of society and the economy.

It's very likely at this point anyway that the insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the ball fumbled by the administration concerning the website by providing enrollment assistance services directly to citizens - not by signing them up directly, but by advising them of their plans and directing them to a functioning website.

(Can you believe from here in Thailand that in the law the federal website is referred to as the "hub"? The hub?! )

Hubba, Hubba!

Publicus on 22 Nov 2023 03:28, said:

"A related question to the cynical American is whether there is diabolical scheme in the White House that has resulted in the fact that since Prez Obama took office the value of the stock market at the NYSE has doubled, adding $6.8 trillion in value to American equities investors.

And whether a grand scheme of evil is at work in the White House that since Prez Obama took office has also doubled the value of the S&P 500 index?"

No, it was and has been a "diabolical scheme" of Bernanke known as Quantitative Easing I, II, III.

Publicus on 22 Nov 2023 03:28, said:

"It's very likely at this point anyway that the insurance companies themselves will have to pick up the ball fumbled by the administration concerning the website by providing enrollment assistance services directly to citizens - not by signing them up directly, but by advising them of their plans and directing them to a functioning website."

Sounds like a bad idea to me and I'm sure the obsessive within the Democrats will too, since, in order to provide a centralized customer database, it would require the insurance companies to interface with the healthcareless.gov database. Somebody should be assigned to ensuring that the Medicaid databases are able to take the new, massive data/volume loads.

BTW, what is with this "Prez" title you use for Obama, POTUS.

Do you think that's cute? What high school do you attend?

If you really want to know about my use of "Prez" for Prez Obama or any former prez, it's a play on American English pronunciation which often tends to make a 'z' sound in using the 's' in pronunciation - for instance "abzurd" for absurd.

I don't normally omit titles - I say normally - from people's names. I note that in your very question which omits the question mark, "BTW, what is with this "Prez" title you use for Obama, POTUS. [sic] you refer to Prez Obama simply as Obama, which when done consistently I consider disrespectful.

Ahh, would that I were in high school again. The days of sexual liberation! Virtually no yakking off.

And here's another one from the same post above about Fed Chairman Bernanke: "No, it was and has been a "diabolical scheme" of Bernanke known as Quantitative Easing I, II, III." You and I have a different idea about referencing public officials and others who have formal titles.

But then you and I digress.

So this is all I'll say about an extraneous matter raised by you.

[just_Elaine]

My preference would have been a single payer system or national healthcare system because then maybe the focus would change from treating illnesses to keeping people healthy. However, there was no way that something like that would get passed through Congress. So we have the compromise which is being acted on again now. My views:

I think kids should be covered until they really have a chance to get out of school and get a job. Age 26 seems reasonable. Give the kids a chance!

I think that insurers that 'don't insure due to pre-existing condition', 'charge a lot due to pre-existing conditions', and/or 'don't insure old people' stinks. I think people should be able to get insured at a somewhat reasonable rate. (I had friends who several years ago mentioned that health insurance for them would be over a thousand dollars a month because one of them developed diabetes). Also, due to the pre-existing condition, it made it impossible for someone who had one to change insurers. Being able to change insurers is a good thing.

Sometimes when I look at my insurance claims, I get a bit angry and sad. For some of the services, the member negotiated rate is more than 50% less than the billed rate. So people who don't have insurance (so no negotiated rate) end up paying the billed rate. Most likely, those are the people who can least afford it. I feel this is not right. So I think that those people should get help to get insurance. Also, I think this would reduce emergency room visits.

I think people that can afford health insurance (based on a percentage of income) and who don't get health insurance now and then get it after the programs have started should have to pay higher premiums than people that were smart enough to get health insurance when the programs started. In other words, that person had a choice which affected the other people in the pool so they should have to pay a higher rate.

I think the elimination of the lifetime limit that a lot of healthcare policies had is terrific. Can you imagine being in the middle of treatment and having to stop it because your limit has been reached? I can't.

People say stuff about national healthcare systems having problems and I'm sure they do. However, if you find out that you are going to need some extensive treatment, wouldn't it be nice not to have to worry about how you are going to get treated even if you have to wait a little? A few people I know went back to their home country to get treatment from their national healthcare systems. It's nice to have a choice.

There was talk on some TV shows that younger adult people might not opt to get healthcare because they are healthy. I really don't get it. You could be playing sports and get hurt. You could get pregnant. You could be in an accident.... I may be missing something, but to me it's nuts.

Finally, I do not want to believe that employers cut their employee hours so that they don't have to provide healthcare for them. I think that there should be a list of these employers so people can boycott their businesses and employees of those firms - start looking for another job!

This healthcare issue is personal... I guess that's why so many people are chiming in.

[Publicus]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

[Publicus]

I tread with trepidation here but...a Republican bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives that addresses most of the problems. The bill currently has over 100 co-signers and is in committee within the House.

Of course, Harry Reid (D-NV) will kill it in the Senate but it could easily come up when the Senate reforms after the 2014 election.

Following are some of the provisions contained in the bill:

1, Fully repeals Obamacare, eliminating billions in taxes and thousands of pages of unworkable regulations and mandates that are driving up health care costs.

2. Spurs competition by allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines and enabling small businesses to pool together to gain buying power.

3. Reforms medical malpractice laws to limit trial lawyer fees and non-economic damages as it keeps protections for patients.

4. Provides tax reform that allows families and individuals to deduct health care costs providing a standard deduction for health insurance.

5. Encourages access to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), increasing the amount of pre-tax dollars individuals can deposit into portable savings accounts to be used for health care expenses.

6. Protects individuals with pre-existing conditions by boosting state-based high risk pools and extending current HIPAA availability protections.

The bill: http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bill_american_health_care_reform_act.pdf

Is it realistic to expect that after five years of Republican Party opposition obstructionism and sabotage of any and every kind against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the Democratic Party is going to even consider taking this unrealistic proposal under any kind of consideration, much less to seriously debate it or to vote for it?

Dream on.

What goes around comes around.

It's also called karma.

This suddenly scrambled and slapdash proposal is not only unrealistic and much too late, it's not honest so it's not to be taken seriously.

The medical insurance train left the station a very long time ago.

Pathetic.

[Publicus]

The republicans accuse Obama of lying about Obamacare.

They accuse him of lying, because he did. It is a proven fact. Millions of people will not be able to keep their health plan, their doctor or save money on premiums, despite what he promised to get it passed.

Teapublicans knowingly and maliciously lied when they falsely spread the malevolent untruth that ObamaCare included "Death Panels."

Say anything, do anything. The end justifies the means.

That's the contemporary teapublican party which hasn't any capability to govern and cannot provide viable or realistic alternative public policy.

The party of shameless lies and of reckless and irresponsible extremism.

[NeverSure]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Which we have proven with link after link will be much more expensive, and many health care providers won't accept it for care.

It also means that many employees will get their hours cut back because under Obamacare, employers have to provide insurance only to full time employees which is defined as 30 hours per week or more.

It also means that due to massively increased costs, many employers will simply drop all insurance because it's cheaper to pay the fine. That puts the mandate onto the individuals who must then buy their own insurance or pay another fine!

Deductibles are through the roof now - into the thousands per year per person.

Oh yeah - California has it made.

[NeverSure]

Why does Obama want to delay Obamacare for a year? Because polls which we've posted say it's killing his and his Democrats' popularity and there's an election in just less than a year.

He doesn't want people to have a year to see how bad it is before the election. He wants to hide it some more in the same fashion that he lied, telling people they would be able to keep their health care policy and doctor. Now everyone knows that isn't true, and every day more people learn how badly Obamacare is hurting them personally.

He doesn't want the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and the Democrat leaders are all over his azz because they also want to have the next president. It's too late, Democrats 555.

Right now the individual mandate has kicked in. In a year the employer mandate kicks in and it will increase unemployment and underemployment as employers balk at paying the high health care bills.

Dominoes. I'm watching the first few dominoes fall.

[MaxYakov]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

In other words it means that new policies must conform to the "law of the land". If Obama has espoused otherwise (and apparently he has), he is a scofflaw and is, among other things, in violation of his oath of office.

I'm sadly astounded that any insurance company or state would agree to violate the law and re-issue cancelled policies. Doesn't the US claim to be a nation of "laws" and not "men"?

The only reason I can think of to justify this action is that it is in their self-interest in some way to do so - politically or financially. IMHO, it is an immoral action. The fact that not all insurance companies/states made the decision re-issue should be a telling indicator that something is amiss. Does this disparity of justice possibly fall under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or some such?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Credo]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

[impulse]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

+1

Quite a few Americans have cobbled together careers where they were never uninsured just by virtue of their employment. Just like lots of Americans still have defined benefit pension plans.

I can understand why they resist changes. They have made out quite well under the status quo.

But, just like defined benefit pensions and lifelong careers with the same company (or gov't entity), those benefits are unavailable to millions of Americans. And they're available to fewer and fewer every year.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I was, not any more- but that's not because of Obamacare), and ACA is not even close to an ideal solution. But it's a step in a direction, away from a system that was fundamentally unfair to millions, unsustainable to the nation's economy, and a national disgrace. Something needs to change. If it needs tweaking later, so be it. But doing nothing is not a viable option.

I'm tickled pink at the prospect that I may now find any insurance (at any cost) that will cover all the bits. I'm looking forward to being able to choose a career based on my skills and ambitions and not based on which choices cover me for the possibility I may need health care.

[sustento]

I KNOW you are wrong about the preexisting condition thing from personal experience for decades in the U.S. Please don't try to mislead people that the status quo on that was remotely acceptable.

Also don't even try to go there and suggest that I love Obamacare. I want nationalized health care! I just think Obamacare is move forward from the totally unacceptable status quo.

You can't get me to agree to socialism until you show me one country where it is working and will continue to work long term.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/chart-life-expectancy-at-birth-and-health-care-spending-per-capita/

[NeverSure]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

+1

Quite a few Americans have cobbled together careers where they were never uninsured just by virtue of their employment. Just like lots of Americans still have defined benefit pension plans.

I can understand why they resist changes. They have made out quite well under the status quo.

But, just like defined benefit pensions and lifelong careers with the same company (or gov't entity), those benefits are unavailable to millions of Americans. And they're available to fewer and fewer every year.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I was, not any more- but that's not because of Obamacare), and ACA is not even close to an ideal solution. But it's a step in a direction, away from a system that was fundamentally unfair to millions, unsustainable to the nation's economy, and a national disgrace. Something needs to change. If it needs tweaking later, so be it. But doing nothing is not a viable option.

I'm tickled pink at the prospect that I may now find any insurance (at any cost) that will cover all the bits. I'm looking forward to being able to choose a career based on my skills and ambitions and not based on which choices cover me for the possibility I may need health care.

You guys are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. Therefore, apparently, that must make the whole ACA good.

Such logic. That single issue could have been addressed without the train wreck called Obamacare.

And no, Obamacare is not a step in the right direction unless you are a health care provider, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a health care insurance company. In that case it's a real windfall at the massive expense of the average American.

If you are one of those corporate entities, then what's not to like? You've just had a trillion dollars thrown at you in new business and you are free to charge as much as you want for it, and spend it as you like.

[Publicus]

Responsible people that budget money, work hard and keep insurance in place even when it is not needed do not want nationalized health care. Why should I, or my doctor friend, now pay $ 10,000 to $ 20,000 more a year so irresponsible people can get health care coverage.

The problem is, this nationalized health care stuff penalizes those who are responsible, go to school, make good grades and work their tails off in life. The US should be encouraging people to get education, get jobs, be productive save money and do the right things. Nationalized anything is contrary to that policy and promotes laziness. Move to Russia or China if you want Nationalized this or that . . .

Concerning your final sentence, one will have to move to England or France to get nationalized medical insurance as both Russia and the CCP-PRC have highly limited medical insurance that barely qualifies as "nationalized."

The ACA provides another form of limited socialized medical insurance without promoting the kind of NHS of Britain or the socialist medical insurance of France.

And none of the 317m people of the United States need to leave the United States to get medical insurance.

What, you want 200m Americans to have to go to China or Russia to get medical care or treatment whenever we might need it?????

What kind of attitude is that?

[Publicus]

On the news today- California rejects Obama's fix as being illegal.

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

Which we have proven with link after link will be much more expensive, and many health care providers won't accept it for care.

It also means that many employees will get their hours cut back because under Obamacare, employers have to provide insurance only to full time employees which is defined as 30 hours per week or more.

It also means that due to massively increased costs, many employers will simply drop all insurance because it's cheaper to pay the fine. That puts the mandate onto the individuals who must then buy their own insurance or pay another fine!

Deductibles are through the roof now - into the thousands per year per person.

Oh yeah - California has it made.

Concerning ObamaCare, your posts continually, regularly and consistently use the auxiliary verb "will".

Just on this page we have, more than once

will be

will get

will drop

will increase

And to include a lot of "won't" too.

You wanna share your ObamaCare crystal ball?

Such absolute prescience is much to be admired.

[Credo]

@Neversure

I am not concentrating on one thing. I am telling you what happened to ME and I am not alone. What happened to me also affected my entire family.

Those capitalistic insurance companies did not want to insure me when I was young and healthy, even though the chances of a problem due to my pre-existing condition was minimal. I now look forward to being able to stick them with the bill now that I am a bit older and they are likely to get stuck with some of those costs.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. If you wish to discuss socialism in general, please find a different forum, perhaps OTB.