Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People don't like change. People also don't take the time to learn about these things. I would bet that a good majority of people think "Obamacare" is actually a health insurance plan that they have to take vs legislation to standardized private health plans. If you look in the health insurance board, that is exactly what you see. MN has released their rates, they are very reasonable. We haven't seen all that much change in MN because we have had most of these provisions for years. Other parts of the country, not so much. Rates in MN are also the lowest in the country, even before ACA. I would expect and have found that most people do not even notice a difference in their costs or policies other than when they don't have to pay a co-pay for preventive care or they pick up a prescription and it's free to them because of the ACA.
People don't like change. People also don't take the time to learn about these things. I would bet that a good majority of people think "Obamacare" is actually a health insurance plan that they have to take vs legislation to standardized private health plans. If you look in the health insurance board, that is exactly what you see. MN has released their rates, they are very reasonable. We haven't seen all that much change in MN because we have had most of these provisions for years. Other parts of the country, not so much. Rates in MN are also the lowest in the country, even before ACA. I would expect and have found that most people do not even notice a difference in their costs or policies other than when they don't have to pay a co-pay for preventive care or they pick up a prescription and it's free to them because of the ACA.
This hasn't even completely gone into effect yet, so it strikes me as premature to declare "mission accomplished."
What a silly response. Every citizen has a right to lobby and argue for change. You may not be familiar with this. It is from the U.S. Constitution.
Eh, I phrased that response poorly. I was specifically referring to the asinine idea that anyone is being forced at gunpoint to do anything, which they're not. Of course people can work to change things they don't like.
Although you seemed very clear, I certainly hope I'm misunderstanding what you said. Your post seems to say that if someone opposes this thing that was "decided on," they should leave the country. Are you really saying there's no legitimate dissenting view, not on any aspect of the law? Now that the ACA is in place, dissenters should remove themselves from this society? Wow. I wonder how you responded to the Vietnam War protesters, or how you would have responded to women marching for suffrage? I guess you would have felt that those women aren't obligated to stay here, and should move to another country where they can vote?
No, I was specifically referring to Penn Jillette's statement that people are being forced at gunpoint to participate in this system. They're not. I'll cop to having phrased that poorly.
No, I was specifically referring to Penn Jillette's statement that people are being forced at gunpoint to participate in this system. They're not. I'll cop to having phrased that poorly.
So people can opt out? I didn't see that option. You realize that the IRS is the enforcement mechanism. Ever try to opt out of your taxes?
I certainly think Jillette formulated his quote for effect, but if I don't have the option not to participate, I'm being forced.
What do you think would happen if someone refused to sign up for the Selective Service? That person could be subject to 5 years in prison, and would be unable to file a FAFSA to qualify for federal educational financial aid. So are teenagers forced to sign up for the SSS at gunpoint? Do you feel their actions are free of coercion?
What happens if someone doesn't sign up for the ACA? Nobody seems to be clear on that, but when the IRS has skin in the game, I guarantee that people don't want to mess with non-compliance.
So okay, if you want to claim that the ACA does not represent the use of force by the federal government, that's fine, but it's not unreasonable to call it a governmental use of power.
What do you think would happen if someone refused to sign up for the Selective Service? That person could be subject to 5 years in prison, and would be unable to file a FAFSA to qualify for federal educational financial aid. So are teenagers forced to sign up for the SSS at gunpoint? Do you feel their actions are free of coercion?
What happens if someone doesn't sign up for the ACA? Nobody seems to be clear on that, but when the IRS has skin in the game, I guarantee that people don't want to mess with non-compliance.
So okay, if you want to claim that the ACA does not represent the use of force by the federal government, that's fine, but it's not unreasonable to call it a governmental use of power.
Technically, it is structured as a mandatory program with a penalty for individuals and employers who do not comply with the provisions of the act. Practically however, both individuals and employers will calculate the amount of the penalty and compare it to the cost of purchasing insurance, either for their own use or for employees. Employers will simply choose the lower cost option, while individuals will weigh the costs and benefits of purchasing insurance against paying the penalty and doing without insurance coverage. That's why there are so many ACA penalty calculators available.
So, to Jillete's point, the mandate is being enforced through the power of government in the form of a fine, yet neither side is viewing the mandate as truly mandatory, but as simply a more complex financial decision. If the numbees dictate, employers will drop their healthcare benefits and pay the fine instead. If the cost of the insurance through the exchanges is too high, these employees will choose to pay a penalty themselves rather than the higher insurance premiums. If the penalties are set too low, we could easily end up with more people uninsured than we have now.
What's more, in order to contain costs, the services provided under the policies available through the states' exchanges are already being curtailed. This ought to be very interesting. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,2814725.story
Last edited by Glenfield; 09-16-2013 at 02:00 PM..
This hasn't even completely gone into effect yet, so it strikes me as premature to declare "mission accomplished."
Most provisions have gone into effect. Biggest change this year, 2014 policies, is the no pre-existing conditions clause for people over 19. The penalty for companies was delayed a year but the nuts and bolts of the policy changes are almost all implemented already. The biggest difference in MN that people will see is the age of eligible children moved from 24 to 26 but previously the 24 year olds had to be students, that was taken away. The change to the pre-existing condition clause is also new for people in MN as is the life time cap elimination. That has been in place for a couple years now.
Technically, it is structured as a mandatory program with a penalty for individuals and employers who do not comply with the provisions of the act.
Yes, my phrasing was awkward. I understand the penalty.
I was speaking more rhetorically to what happens if someone refuses. Because the IRS is involved, and a financial penalty is involved, and they just add up penalties if someone refuses, eventually what happens? I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't eventually handle that the same way they handle people who deny taxes; with a prison sentence. Calling Wesley Snipes; Mr. Snipes to the podium, please.
And to the original point, I know what the Democrats passed, and I know what the Supreme Court decided. I'm not some kind of radical tossing grenades and shouting. I just think it's useful to make a distinction between things that are legal and things that don't make much sense. The ACA may astonish and amaze some people, and there's a clear social good (or at least a good intention) involved with its implementation, but I find myself increasingly skeptical, especially so when I see Congress exempting itself, the unions crying foul, and most job creation in the part-time workforce.
Technically, it is structured as a mandatory program with a penalty for individuals and employers who do not comply with the provisions of the act. Practically however, both individuals and employers will calculate the amount of the penalty and compare it to the cost of purchasing insurance, either for their own use or for employees. Employers will simply choose the lower cost option, while individuals will weigh the costs and benefits of purchasing insurance against paying the penalty and doing without insurance coverage. That's why there are so many ACA penalty calculators available.
So, to Jillete's point, the mandate is being enforced through the power of government in the form of a fine, yet neither side is viewing the mandate as truly mandatory, but as simply a more complex financial decision. If the numbees dictate, employers will drop their healthcare benefits and pay the fine instead. If the cost of the insurance through the exchanges is too high, these employees will choose to pay a penalty themselves rather than the higher insurance premiums. If the penalties are set too low, we could easily end up with more people uninsured than we have now.
That isn't any different then what plans have today. If you pick a low cost plan, say an HMO, you have a very limited network and usually no out of state coverage except in a life-threatening emergency. Again, this goes back to what we have already had in MN. About 95% of MD's, clinics and hospitals in MN participate in the major plans so, if you have BC/BS, Health Partners, etc. you aren't going to have problems finding drs. In other states the networks are much, much smaller in many cases. In Northern WI, for example, they pretty much have one medical provider, Marshfiled--similar to what we see with Health Partners or Fairview--they manage most of the clinics up there. They don't take most national plans for insurance so people are either paying for out of network coverage or having to drive 60+ miles to find an in-network doctor. It's not new and in that article, it's just ONE option that people can choose if they want to keep their costs lower.
That's one view, but I think most people would agree that there are significant changes ahead.
ObamaCare Health Care Reform Timeline 2014
•There is a tax starting at 1% of your income or $95 and raising to 2.5% of your income or $685 by 2016 for individuals. For a family, it's capped at $285 in 2014 and rises to $2,085 by 2016. It cannot exceed these amounts. This helps pay for emergency and future coverage you may need. The tax penalty is paid on your tax returns. This is a "tax" not a "mandate".
• Congress must shop on the health insurance exchanges.
• Pharmaceutical companies are subject to a new tax.
• ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion expands coverage to 17 million low-income individuals (The supreme court ruling has given states the opportunity to opt-out of Medicaid expansion).
• A health insurance exchange is set up by state or the federal government if the state decides not to run their own exchange.
• Employers will be able to shop on the health insurance exchanges for employee insurance.
• Tax credits, tax breaks and help with up-front costs are available to those struggling to pay for insurance.
• There is a new tax on medical devices.
• Insurance companies are taxed based on their market share.
• ObamaCare raises the bar on medical expenses before you deduct them from your taxes.
• Small Business Employers can shop for employee coverage on the health insurance exchange.
ObamaCare Health Care Reform Timeline 2015
• Doctors' income is based on quality of care not quantity of care. This is a vast simplification of the actual documentation in the bill. It is a protection from the current fee-for-service payment model.
ObamaCare Health Care Reform Timeline 2017
• States can implement their own plans which meet the standards of ObamaCare such as single-payer. (similar to ObamaCare, but instead of buying private insurance everyone pays a tax and everyone has coverage)
• Provides states flexibility to allow businesses with more than 100 employees to purchase coverage in the SHOP Exchange
• No more preexisting conditions for anyone including high-risk customers.
ObamaCare Health Care Reform 2018
• All healthcare plans (including plans held since before preventive care was required) must now offer preventive coverage.
• The "Cadillac" tax for higher quality coverage for individuals and employers purchasing insurance for employees is put in place.
ObamaCare Health Care Reform 2020
• ObamaCare fully eliminates the Medicare Gap (instead of just offering rebates to seniors).
For more information on health care reform check out our extensive coverage of Obama Care Facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
