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.
IMO I think most people are mad they are being told what they want and not asked if they want it.
The noise you hear is our freedom being flushed down the drain. Americans are not use to that. We might have it with our taxes but not as close and intimate to us as with our healthcare and what doctor we can have.
None of this has anything to do with ACA:
Employers, representing 80% of insured people, switch insurers or plans within insurers. Different insurers /plans may or may not include the same MDs, medical practices and hospitals they did the prior year.
MDs, medical practices and hospitals opt in and out of healthcare networks all the time.
Insurers add/delete hospitals/medical practices all the time.
Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) Plans that do not pay for non emergency stabilization out of network have been around for awhile in those states that allow such plans.
Creating the impression that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" was insanity, given there has never been certainty that one's MD, medical practice or hospital would remain constant, year to year unless one could afford the out of pocket costs.
I don't think Obama won due to Obamacare. However, I think if the truth about how Obamacare was going to impact us came out, then he likely wouldn't have won. Quite simply, if he had been an honest broker and told Americans the truth, they wouldn't have voted for him. His choice to lie about this shows that he understands Obamacare is not a worthy law. It if were, he would have been comfortable telling the truth about it during the election.
Something that impacts 3% of the population is statistically insignificant unless you are one of the people impacted.
That 15% of the population is uninsured is more significant.
That in some states, like Texas, 25% of U.S. citizens and legal workers are uninsured is significant.
I remain stunned that neither the states ( especially those who oppose ACA and Obama in general) nor individual insurers who knew that a percentage of plans would not be grandfathered chose to remain silent. This makes no sense.
no, romneycare doesnt go anywhere near as far as obamacare goes. yes there is an individual mandate, and an employer mandate, but the restrictions on insurance companies are far less than what obamacare does, and romneycare didnt entail 20,000 pages of regulations like obamacare does, and romneycare was a STATE level deal, not a federal deal. the myth is that obamacare and romneycare are identical, and that is not true. check them both out for yourself and see the differences. romneycare didnt add a bunch of new taxes lime obamacare does, and the people of mass. like romneyare, the people of the US dont like obamacare.
What restrictions on insurance companies are you referring to?
There's a lot more that is similar than dissimilar between the two approaches as it relates to consumers. Here are the key differences:
ACA mandates employers with 50 or more employees while Mass mandates at 11.
ACA provides tax incentives to small business, while Mass. does not.
ACA institutes a medical loss ratio, limiting the profits of insurers, while Mass. does not.
ACA allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parent's policies without limitations while Mass. allows adult children up to age 26 to receive limited coverage.
ACA offers Medicaid to those at 130% of FPL while Mass. goes to 150%.
ACA includes several provisions of Medicare reform and tax revenues to pay for ACA. Medicare is a federal program and is not a part of state law. How many pages of ACA are devoted to Medicare is anyone's guess.
ACA defines FTE as 30 or more payroll hours a week. Via reform, Mass. identifies FTE as employees who work at least 500 hours per quarter.
When it is easy for any government to take over? When people become desprate, hungry and homeless. And that is what is happening.
Given the spending on SNAP, CHIP, school meals and other food safety nets, who is hungry? The incidences of homelessness has been declining for the past two decades, adjusted for growth in the general population due to greater government safety nets.
And at the other extreme we have people who seek to eliminate most federal laws, including labor, minimum wage, welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, EPA, OSHA, FDA ( most of the a's), FRB, public education, healthcare and so on.
The U.S. could compete with the third world because it would be a third world. Your freedom to sleep under a bridge could come in handy.
No. The false presumption is that Obamacare is an improvement.
If Obamacare is so great, why do people have to be forced to buy an Obamacare plan? Why the mandate? If it's so great shouldn't people want to buy in on their own?
The fact that Obama and the Dems knew that they couldn't get the country to buy into Obamacare without enacting a punitive mandate speaks volumes.
Every single nation that has done a better job than the U.S. in terms of managing healthcare costs minimally mandates healthcare insurance. How they do it and who pays for it, varies by nation.
One of the more recent mandates occurred in Switzerland in the late 90's. Unlike the U.S. and some other nations, the Swiss do not have the equivalent of Medicare nor employer sponsored insurance. Everyone is required to have a private healthcare policy with a baseline of coverage.
In a matter of a few years, 99% of the Swiss became insured. That the Swiss government subsidizes the cost for about 40% of the population was a major factor in this accomplishment.
The Swiss, by culture, are a substantially risk adverse population. They quickly grasped the cost of the uninsured has a direct bearing on the cost of healthcare and quality of life.
Here in the states, it seems that some seriously resent the individual mandate to take responsibility for their own healthcare insurance and yet that same group seems to expect a right to healthcare in the event of a serious accident or disease.
That depends. There are significant issues encountered by those who strive to attend college. For example, Mom and/or dad reside in the Chicago, Illinois area. Whichever of them gets health insurance through the exchange, it covers the whole family. That policy extends to children until they turn 26. Their child graduates High School, and heads off to college, say also in Illinois, but downstate at SIU.
According to Obamacare policies' very narrow networks, they'll have no in network coverage in their college area.
What if the child goes to college out of state? Same problem: no in network coverage.
How does this differ from pre ACA? My large group policy/PPO did not offer in-network coverage downstate and did not include out of state costs, unless an emergency. Those with HMOs were further restricted.
Exactly right. If he told the truth no way would he have gotten elected.
Um, actually the issues nor the opposing candidates had anything to do with his election.
It came down to massive vote fraud and with a complicit media to make it seem legit.
Our debt keeps piling up. Too many governmental expenses are excluded from being counted as part of the deficit. Whoppers like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations and now Obamacare are not counted in the deficit.
Only one year the U.S. has not been in debt- 1835. Every president inherits debts and adds to it, including those who campaigned on a promise to balance the budget but never did.
The exclusions are not new. Heck, the FNMA/FHLMC thing goes back to LBJ, a balance sheet maneuver to balance the budget.
That the budget deficits are declining is evidence the Sequester is performing as expected.
Every single nation that has done a better job than the U.S. in terms of managing healthcare costs minimally mandates healthcare insurance. How they do it and who pays for it, varies by nation.
One of the more recent mandates occurred in Switzerland in the late 90's. Unlike the U.S. and some other nations, the Swiss do not have the equivalent of Medicare nor employer sponsored insurance. Everyone is required to have a private healthcare policy with a baseline of coverage.
In a matter of a few years, 99% of the Swiss became insured. That the Swiss government subsidizes the cost for about 40% of the population was a major factor in this accomplishment.
The Swiss, by culture, are a substantially risk adverse population. They quickly grasped the cost of the uninsured has a direct bearing on the cost of healthcare and quality of life.
Let's be more like Switzerland. Look at how regressive their taxes are:
For those who don't understand what regressive taxes are, it means those who earn the least pay the highest tax rates, with tax rates diminishing as income increases. European social democracy countries with national healthcare systems spread the cost among all equitably. They don't soak the rich.
I would be on board with transitioning the U.S. to the same kind of highly regressive tax system Switzerland has to insure 99% of the U.S. population. Would you?
If you had read the NY Times article, you would have seen that insurers are narrowing networks to be able to meet Obamacare's "affordability" mandate. They're keeping premiums low by restricting availability more so than ever before.
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.
