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.
My reason in believing the individual mandate will be delayed is because if you can't buy insurance from the health exchanges, how can you be reasonably expected to have insurance on Jan 1? A little over 2.5 months left and the government is shutdown, how are you going to operate when you are close for business?
I feel like its going to be delayed because of the healthcare.gov debacle. It is ironic because that's what the Republicans wanted with the debt ceiling. Point is, if it is going to be delayed because you can't buy off some of the exchanges currently, is it just "politics" then that Obama doesn't side with the Republicans even though he knows he is going to have to delay the Individual Mandate?
I think this law is so messed up that we should get a delay for a year. Why punish people with a federal fine, when they were unable to get insurance? It's not just being forced to buy insurance, you have to successfully jump thru all the hoops to get the insurance, and even then, it might not be insurance Obama approves of, and you get fined anyway. Or, the insurance might end up being so expensive that you cannot afford to pay for it, and you still get fined.
No one from the left wants to discuss how it is fair that Obama passed out waivers and gave corporations a year to provide health insurance for their employees and exempted them from the fines. But is making the people buy HC insurance or face a fine. How is that fair?
He also does not have the authority to use "waivers" to modify tax laws on the fly for one group of people, but not another.
Is it really much of a legal system if the Congress passes laws, a president signs them into law, and then that same president, or the next one, can simply pick and choose which sections of the law he wants to ignore? Or worse yet, can he can pick and choose which lucky citizens get to disobey the law, and which will be prosecuted for disobeying the law?
What good is passing laws if they do not have to be enforced, or must be enforced for some people but not others?
20 and 30 somethings are more likely to not have insurance benefits provided by employers. The younger the age, the more likely that is the case.
The other large group of uninsured are sick people - those with pre-existing conditions.
Together with any other uninsured, they form the pool of people who will buy policies designed by insurers for Obamacare.
That pool of risk determines the rate. The young have low risk and are going to be subsidizing those with high risk - older and sicker people.
If the young aren't forced to buy, rates will skyrocket.
that is the basic premise of insurance. What's new? ACA didn't create this.
What ACA does is not allow insurance companies to do anymore is to pick and choose the healthy to cover[hence making money off them] and dropping the seriously ill forcing them to government care.
Starting in 2014, Cobra coverage is mandatory... you have to be insured even if you are fired, right? Didn't Sebelius say the are READY months ago... why do liberals keep lying?
Starting in 2014, Cobra coverage is mandatory... you have to be insured even if you are fired, right? Didn't Sebelius say the are READY months ago... why do liberals keep lying?
COBRA You retain your employer provided heath insurance for a year after separation. that was if your employer provided HC insurance. I dont think cobra was offered if fired.
COBRA You retain your employer provided heath insurance for a year after separation. that was if your employer provided HC insurance. I dont think cobra was offered if fired.
ACA does not change COBRA rules.
Most people do not use cobra cause costs are often prohibitive.
By removing the employer 60-70% subsidy. Former employees had to pay 100% of the premiums.
Say premiums for family of four was $1000/month. Employer (like us govt) subsidized employee $700/month and employee only had to pay $300/month.
With cobra employee had to pay $1000/month. Many would elect not to use cobra cause individual insurance was often much cheaper at $500-700 a month for family of four.
You don't have to scrap Obamacare to delay the individual mandate. They already delayed the business insurance mandate.
There's a rule in Obamacare that limits out-of-pocket costs -- including deductibles and co-payments -- to $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. Sounds simple enough.
But when the Obama administration went to implement the rule, it found it wasn't going to be that easy. Some insurers and employers lack the capacity to keep track of an individual's out-of-pocket health costs. They often use different companies to administer medical benefits and pharmaceutical benefits -- and those companies' computer systems don't speak to each other. Implementing the rule would require upgrading those systems -- and that takes time.
So, the Obama administration delayed the rule for certain insurers and employers until 2015.
There is no similar reason for the individual mandate.
There's a rule in Obamacare that limits out-of-pocket costs -- including deductibles and co-payments -- to $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. Sounds simple enough.
Uh... I don't believe it limits co-insurance rates which means bronze plans would have people pay 40% of the costs and in the silver plan, the people pay 30% of the costs after the deductibles...
Quote:
But when the Obama administration went to implement the rule, it found it wasn't going to be that easy. Some insurers and employers lack the capacity to keep track of an individual's out-of-pocket health costs. They often use different companies to administer medical benefits and pharmaceutical benefits -- and those companies' computer systems don't speak to each other. Implementing the rule would require upgrading those systems -- and that takes time.
So, the Obama administration delayed the rule for certain insurers and employers until 2015.
The employers don't keep track of your deductible, your insurer's do and they have been doing that for the past several decades. This isn't new, this has existed when deductibles have been in place since forever. The delay for something that has been done for decades is really smokescreen.
I'm still confused as to how something can be a mandate and an entitlement at the same time.
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.
