Obama Care and State Exchanges

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (75 posts)

90
peoplepower73posted 10 years ago
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
reply report
1. 74
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently, PP, Governor Rick Perry is throwing the Texas’ hospital industry, healthcare providers, and all sick, poor Texans under the wheels of the campaign bus he is steering toward the 2016 elections.
  
  “Health Officials Decry Texas' Snubbing Of Medicaid Billions” reports NPR.org
  “The state of Texas is turning down billions of federal dollars that would have paid for health care coverage for 1.5 million poor Texans. By refusing to participate in Medicaid expansion, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, the state will leave on the table an estimated $100 billion over the next decade.”
  http://www.npr.org/2013/05/23/186303141 … 4&ft=1
  
  It seems the governor has healthcare insurance for himself and he doesn't give a hoot for those who do not.
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How sad. Keep the poor from getting insurance so Rick Perry can get elected president. What a sad commentary!
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read.
  
  Rick Perry will let millions of his state's citizens get sick and die rather than
  accept federal money with the word "Obama" attached to it.
  
  Why does Sarah Palin and the infamous "bridge to nowhere" come to mind here?
  
  Seriously. Maybe it is time for Texas to secede from the country.
  And pass their portion of the Medicaid funding to those states that want and appreciate
  it!
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  During the debates, Rick Perry couldn't even remember the five organizations he was going to dismantle. Maybe Sarah Palin should run as his VP so she can show him how to write notes on the palm of their hands.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I can see the campaign slogan now:
  Who are you voting for in 2016?
  I have to go P.P.!
  
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Are you saying goodbye to me, or do you have to go or both?
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  OMG, PeoplePower.
  I was not thinking of your initials being PP.
  
  I was thinking about the Perry/Palin ticket being P/P or PP or pee pee.
  Further down into scatalogical humor I will not go.
  Although both Perry and Palin are stinky political waste products that deserve to be
  flushed -- permanently.
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's very clever. I needed a good laugh!
  reply report
  74
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Hi MM. Nice to chat with you again.
  
  Unfortunately, I do not think that Texas can afford to secede from the USA. It seems 39-40% of the state’s annual budget in 2011 was met with Federal funds. The state ranked 11th that year for dependence on Federal programs! {1}
  
  {1} http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/pub … e-end-near
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not only would their general fund be depleted by a significant amount,
  they'd miss out on a fair amount of FEMA disaster funding as well.
  But since climate change doesn't exist in tea-party states, they won't be expecting
  any outsized natural disasters. Therefore that aid won't be missed.
  
  States' rights and small government. Yeah, right.
  
  http://www.pewstates.org/projects/state … 5899478372
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Texas is not going to succeed but you have to remember that if they did - their citizens would not pay federal taxes anymore so that money would shift to the state - leaving more for the state than it currently draws from the fed.
  
  Texas has its own programs for treating those who don't qualify for Medicaid, and Perry is only saying he wants to sit the first year out. Trying to demonize him is silly. Saying he's turning down free money is also silly. Taxpayer money is never free. It doesn't grow on trees.
  
  Mark my words - the current Obamacare plan will fail. There's a lot of horn-tooting and wearing of rose-colored glasses going on just now, but let's revisit this issue a year from now. I'm sure the progressives will blame the failures on the conservatives and vice versa, but the bottom line is that this plan is not fiscally sound.
  reply report
2. 60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Three states have published their full Obamacare costs analysis all three have found significant insurance cost reductions with massive increases to the quality and availability of care (such as no monetary annual limit).
  
  We will see if the trend holds but the doom and gloom guys are looking very dumb indeed, healthcare for the elderly costs were almost halved in Oregon.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Josak,
  I think the no limit is no LIFETIME limit, not no annual limit.
  That sure would be cool though!
  
  There are published out-of-pocket maximums for individuals and for families
  for each plan. As with any insurance, the higher you pay in premiums, the less you
  will pay in out-of-pocket costs. But you will still pay some.
  
  I have never reached my out-of-pocket annual maximum on my plan. Although 2013 could be the year -- two days in ICU in January plus physical therapy plus followup MRIs.
  Can't even imagine where we'd be financially if we didn't have insurance coverage!
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Three of my four prescription costs are down to zero. My wife and I get free annual physicals including complete blood workups; no co-pay for office visits. and the doughnut hole for prescription drugs is closing. We are happy campers. Thank you Obama Care.
  reply report
77
Mighty Momposted 10 years ago
California is so excited about the exchanges that the announcement of the insurers
who will be in the exchange was the top story in the Sacramento Bee yesterday.
ABOVE coverage of the Kings staying in town. That's really huge!

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/24/544482 … veals.html
A few weeks back they announced some $38 million in grant funding to orgs throughout CA to educate the public about the benefits and enrollment process.
That has been my biggest (and thusfar only) complaint about Obamacare.
That they've done a terrible job promoting it.

California has its issues, to be sure. But thank God we're a big blue state!!
reply report
1. 90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Isn't interesting there is a correlation between republican governors and those states that don't want exchanges? I agree with you. Obama's staff has done a terrible job of promoting Obama Care.
  
  However, if you go to their website, it's everything you wanted to know about Obama Care, but were afraid to ask. Here is the link. http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Why would anyone think to go to the WH site to learn about Obamacare?
  
  I never would!
  I did, however, become intimately familiar with the CoveredCalifornia and CoveredColorado websites last year.
  We are ahead of the game on Obamacare in our family. We were able to
  purchase individual health insurance coverage for my husband and my son under the interim preexisting conditions exchanges.
  
  Wanna know the hardest part of that process? Suffering through the "interview" process
  with an insurance company just to get the letter of coverage denial you need to apply
  for PCIP (preexisting conditions insurance program).
  Torture.
  But absolutely worth it.
  reply report
  90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I know people in California's PCIP insurance program for pre-existing conditions. All they had to do was not have had insurance for the previous 6 months and have a letter from a doctor saying they have an illness that needs to be treated. There was no interview or rejection by an insurance company required. These were the rules in SoCal about a year ago that allowed folks to buy insurance when they knew nobody would insure them.
  
  One of those folks credits Obamacare for saving his life and allowing him to return to work.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Great to hear other proponents, Dr. Billy Kidd.
  
  To clarify,
  
  Getting the letter from my husband's doctor was easy.
  Getting hooked into PCIP coverage for my son in Colorado was the nightmare.
  Proving he hadn't had insurance for 6 months was not hard.
  But he was not under the care of a doctor.
  So we have to "apply" for insurance to get him rejected so we could get the
  rejection letter.
  The insurance company, having no incentive to help us -- since they were denying him --
  made it very, very difficult to get the required documentation PCIP needed.
  
  The point of my post, which may have been too subtle, was that dealing with the
  insurance company, not PCIP, was the hard part.
  
  We are all very, very grateful for PCIP as the first wave of ACA health care exchanges.
  Even my 21-year-old son, who is studying natural medicine, now understands the importance of having insurance -- in case he breaks a leg playing basketball.
  reply report
  90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, Mighty Mom. I kind of figured you were talking about someone in Colorado with no history of being rejected for insurance.
  
  I've been looking at some of the prices that will be offered on the Insurance Exchange in Calif. when it goes live this October. It looks like a young person could get insurance for as little as $200 a month. And that's subsidized if you make something like $30,000 a year for an individual. The government will kick in $500.
  
  Kaiser has a chart for calculating 2014 healthcare costs and subsidies athttp://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#incomeAgeTables
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What are your thoughts on the options in the exchange?
  
  I haven't been notified yet by Kaiser what will happen if I
  switch from my current individual plan to the exchange plan.
  It will cost me less in premiums, I know that.
  And I believe the annual OOP max is lower on the exchange.
  Question is the cost sharing % on the big ticket items like a hospital stay.
  reply report
  90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There are 4 levels of policies that must be offered from every state healthcare exchange established by the Affordable Healthcare Act. Yes, you'll pay a higher premium or copay for the Gold plan. But it will cover 90% of your healthcare costs. The Bronze plan will only cover 60% of your healthcare costs. All states must set it up that way. The states that opted out will have approximately 3 different providers brought in by the federal government to offer these 4 types of policies. I do not know how much the cost difference will be. I didn't see what level the Kaiser policy was at.
  
  For more information, go to http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_pr … silvergold
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Dr Billy,
  
  How do you expect low-income earners that can only afford to buy the Bronze plan to be able to afford the co-pay and deductible? After all - only the premium is subsidized.
  reply report
  90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It expect that the Bronze plan will pay enough to keep hospitals and emergency rooms to stay in business, regardless of whether the copay is paid. That would be better than it is now where high-level ERs are shutting down and dumping it on the state and counties. That's because the hospital cannot afford to keep them open because of people without insurance using them.
  
  I will have to check what they current Medicare Plan in Oregon is. It found that having a doctor for routine visits saved money and promoted better health among the poor--as opposed to using ER rooms.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  One of the problems cited during the Obamacare discussions, was that people who did not currently have insurance were not seeking medical help, or were waiting to seek help until it was too late in some instances and illnesses had progressed because they could not afford to pay the bill.
  
  I don't see how this changes that. The Bronze plan might pay 60% of a covered expense, but that other 40% isn't going to be just sitting in the poor person's bank account. So, I don't see where this person's situation has changed much. Unless the hospital promises not to pursue the balance and not file against the person's credit report - the person will still try to self-diagnose and treat.
  
  And things that a routine doctor's office visit - lab tests - mammograms - those things will have to slide as well.
  
  As far as I can tell - people in the income bracket that will receive a partially subsidized payment will for all intents and purposes - still be in the same boat. Only now - the stats will "show" they have coverage.
  
  If appearances are all that matters - this might be a good plan after all.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No. You won't have to forego doctor visits or preventive screening tests.
  Wellness and preventive care are big emphases of ACA!
  
  Annual wellness exam is $0 copay for Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum plans.
  Other primary care, specialty care, lab, radiology, emergency room, urgent care, hospitalization (cost share) rates are listed right in the plan booklet.
  
  Knowing the charges is a HUGE IMPROVEMENT over current insurance coverage.
  Where you go to get care now only to find out after the fact that your provider "negotiated" a fee with your insurance company that is outrageously expensive for the service, your insurance company is only paying a portion it anyway, and you're stuck with
  a huge honking bill payable to the provider.
  
  What benefits are included in the Covered California Health Plans?
  The plans that will be off ered through Covered California are guaranteed to provide
  basic levels of coverage and provide consumer protections set forth in the Aff ordable
  Care Act, including the ten Essential Health Benefits:
  1. Ambulatory patient services
  2. Emergency services
  3. Hospitalization
  4. Maternity and newborn care
  5. Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral
  health treatment
  6. Prescription drugs
  7. Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
  8. Laboratory services
  9. Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
  10. Pediatric services
  reply report
  90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely cool that mental health was included. That in itself will lower doctor and hospitalization costs. People with poor mental health generally have poor physical health.
  report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You're so right on correlation between mental (incl. behavioral) health and physical.
  So glad they included that, too.
  
  I look at the goals of ACA as like peeling back an onion:
  1. Getting people who have had no medical care at all some attention -- finally
  2. Getting people who have been using ERs to see a primary care physician or PA in
  a clinic or doctor's office -- shift to more appropriate, less expensive care
  3. Getting those with gaps in their care more coordination between providers (holistic approach facilitated by EMRs) -- integrate care
  4. Backing the whole thing up from crisis care to treatment of chronic conditions
  to reduction of chronic conditions to....prevention and .. wellness. -- including incenting providers in ways that reward keeping patients healthy
  
  How could anyone argue with that?
  report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Mighty Mom, are you saying that no insured person, regardless of which tier plan they choose will face any out of pocket expense for any of those 10 essential health benefits?
  
  Will they have NO co-pays for any of those services?
  Will they have NO deductible before receiving ANY of those services?
  
  If so - then the plan will benefit some people for sure.
  If not - it has changed very little.
  report
  90
  Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I see your point. So it's wait and see.
  
  I think the bronze plan was created for people who don't think they'll get sick, as emergency insurance.
  
  Medicaid will cover the truly poor in 26 states.
  reply report
2. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Good luck to your state, MM but it might not be as rosy as some are pushing it to be right now. UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna have all opted out of California's exchanges - they will wait and see what the first year brings.
  
  What some are hyping as a slam-dunk is more likely to be rebound.
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There are some areas of the law that need to be tweaked but republicans are not going to allow that to happen. They want the law to fail and repeal it again for the 38th time, which is an exercise in futility, But they do get one benefit from it. They can continue to spread the propaganda about how bad the law is. This just in from the New Your Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us/po … .html?_r=0
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I see. Obamacare is suddenly a GOP failure. Makes sense - in a twisted, always-blame-the-other-guy, sort of way.
  
  They didn't have to WANT the law to fail for it to fail. It was a bad law from the start because it seeks to pay BOTH the health industry AND the insurance industry.
  
  The problem with your finger-pointing, peoplepower, is that three fingers are pointing back at you. This law is going to be implemented - just as written. That's the nature of law.
  
  When the GOP said let's back up and rework this - Obama got on the tele and crammed it down our throats, demanding that Congress pass it now, now, now. He succeeded.
  
  The next day when the markets opened - health insurance stocks soared. Smart investors bought in - they knew who the real winners were.
  
  The winners haven't changed. Obamacare is in bed with Big Pharma and the health insurance industry.
  
  Affordable health care be damned.
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  HowardBThiname: Reworking a law and refining it are two different things. The GOP didn't want the law in the first place. Why would they want to rework it. Apparently you didn't read the article, and I quote:
  
  "This is not the usual way ambitious laws are carried out, but given the politics of the Affordable Care Act, “we cannot use any of the normal tools to resolve ambiguities or fix problems,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.
  
  The enactment of Medicare in 1965 was followed by changes in 1967, and again in 1972. In November 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed a landmark immigration bill that offered legal status to many unauthorized immigrants. Two years later, Congress made dozens of “technical corrections.”
  
  The Social Security Act of 1935 was followed by the family protection program of 1939, which clarified that benefits could be claimed not just by retirees but also by dependents and survivors of covered workers."
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "Obama is in bed with Big Pharma and the health insurance industry."
  If that were truly the case, he would have never proposed Obamacare.
  Because the current system is rewarding both quite handsomely while
  citizens get sicker and sicker, can't get insurance (or inadequate insurance) and go broke paying for too little medical care too late.
  
  There are tradeoffs all around.
  It's not a simple all-or-nothing, I win everything/you lose everything proposition.
  Is any legislation???
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  MM, Obamacare lines the pockets of Big Pharma and the Health Insurance industry. It guarantees that they will get premiums, and subsidies, yet many low income earners will not be able to pay deductibles and co-pays, making it a freebie in many cases.
  
  You keep saying that all these wonderful benefits will be available - but you never say how low income earners will get around the high deductible and co-pays in the Bronze and Silver plans. Only the premiums are subsidized.
  
  You say there are "tradeoff" but you don't explain how those tradeoffs will keep people from seeking healthcare.
  
  Can you show me that Obamacare will prevent hospitals and other healthcare providers from seeking payment via the court system, and recording non-payment on a patient's credit report? When I was in real estate, we saw many potential buyers turned down because they had medical bankruptcies on their records. People who knew they needed good credit - tried to self-medicate to protect their records.
  
  How will Obamacare change that? Right now - we can all walk into the hosp and get care. We just walk out knowing we have just killed our credit rating if we cant pay. That's why many self-medicate.
  
  How does Obamacare change that? Because, sure, the person might have "coverage", but if he can't use it without destroying his credit rating - how have you helped him?
  
  You call these "tradeoffs," when, in reality - they are game-stoppers.
  reply report
  77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So the exchange is already a failure in your mind because a few insurance companies are not participating?
  
  Maybe FORBES can answer this to your satisfaction:
  UPDATE: A number of readers have responded to this article by asking the question, “If the California exchange is so good, why have United Healthcare, Aetna and Cigna decided not to participate?”
  
  It is true that It is true that these companies are not going to participate in the CA healthcare exchange. the healthcare exchange.
  And while this makes a great meme for the opponents of healthcare reform, there is something they are not telling you —these three companies have never been players in the California individual insurance market so there was never any expectation that they would participate.
  While each of these companies are a major factor in group health insurance-both large and small- their combined participation in the individual market in CA has not been more than 8 percent for a great many years. Meanwhile, the other large insurance companies that have participated in the individual policy business in California have comprised 85 percent of the market. Each of these insurers are participating on the exchange. So, things are not always as they may seem which is why it is so important to read beyond the headline.
  
  Next meme, please.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Well, that's a side-step if I've ever seen one - and not a good one.
  reply report
90
Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years ago
Paul Krugman from the NY Times reported today that Americans will be in for a shock: that Obamacare will work in the Democratic-controlled states where the governors have not struck down the free Medicare expansion for the very poor.

Krugman also reports that very few people will experience higher premiums, and that if you cannot pay for a plan, Medicaid will cover you (at least in the 24 states that did not reject the free Medicare expansion for the very poor. Others have said it is fiscally risky for states to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opini … ;_r=1&
reply report
1. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Krugman.
  
  nuff said.
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  There should be a provision, for those of you who don't want the law, should be able to opt out so that your can be exploited by your insurance companies and big pharma.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The exploitation isn't going to be for those with Cadillac policies - nothing changes for them.
  
  The exploitation comes for low-income earners who must now buy their own policy out of money set aside for food - and then STILL not be able to pay the deductible and co-pays required to get treatment. Even with the subsidy, they will have to pay.
  
  Obamacare is throwing them a bone - in the form of some 100% covered expenses - but they will just have to stay home if they get sick and don't have the bucks to pay their share.
  
  Obamacare equals exploitation.
  
  You might not see it now - but you will. By the end of 2014 - you will.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  "You might not see it now - but you will. By the end of 2014 - you will."
  
  I disagree. Most people will at least try and buy it the first year. When they realize they can't eat and have worthless insurance at the same time they will opt out, but refuse to pay the penalty. At the same time, those that pay enormous sums (enormous to anyone never having bought insurance themselves) while not using their insurance will begin to do the same - opt out and not pay the penalty.
  
  At that point, the system begins to crumble and the real costs become apparent, but it will require at least another year to plainly see it. So, 2+ years, not less than one.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, your timeline makes sense. I'm glad to see that you and I agree on something.
  
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh it happens here and there - sometimes even I'm reasonable!
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The CRS study on that found that less than 2% of the population fall into the very small category who are too poor to afford the insurance but not poor enough to have it fully subsidized, if you really think less than 2% will collapse the system that's fine but it makes no sense mathematically.
  
  Not to mention aside from being a small problem it's not a hard problem to fix.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  As I see it, those will be a problem, but not a major one.
  
  Much, much bigger are going to be those young families that are healthy and think they don't need insurance. Those are going to be hit with (to them) shockingly large bills for the required insurance, and they aren't going to be happy about it.
  
  When they pay out thousands and thousands of dollars that first year and never see a doctor they're going to be even less happy. They're going to stop paying, and those are the people makes the system work at all. The people that are healthy and don't used medical care, but are still required to pay for it.
  
  Adding thousands or millions of uninsurable people because of past history, poor and unhealthy people because they've lived that way their whole lives, and those in their 50's and 60's that are becoming of an age where more care is needed is going to cost. And the payment is going to come from the healthy ones that are suddenly forced to pay for something they don't use, at least until they figure that out.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I see, yeah I expect some young people will not want to pay for it but in places with similar systems the youth don't actually mind paying for it too much, in Israel which has a similar system the people that generally don't join are actually the more conservative elderly. Sure young people go to the doctor less for illness but they actually have healthcare costs that can be quite high due to the higher serious injury rate.
  
  Not to mention that ideologically the youth have the biggest attachment to the policy with high approval ratings for it.
  
  Also youth due to their lower income and tax breaks on certain things are usually recipients of tax returns which will simply be used to cover the penalty.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah - stick it to the kids. That's the ticket.
  
  Never mind that they don't have the earning power yet.
  
  I agree that the youth generally are more accepting of Obamacare - but - let's face it; the young are idealistic and don't always make good decisions. You said yourself that they have higher injury rates - and we all know why.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  As mentioned previously actually thus far even the youth's costs have fallen in released states but yes it might slightly increase, it's certainly not sticking it to them however, this is how an organized society works the youth work and pay so that the elderly the disabled etc. don't have to and when they get old or disabled a new generation of youth will be there to do the same for them, they understand that and thus support the policy. They also aren't dumb enough to believe that their taxes who go to say the disabled is "sticking it to the youth".
  
  I have discussed it with my kids and both don't mind in the slightest having to pay a bit extra to ensure everyone has healthcare especially considering they still get insurance out of it.
  
  Higher injury rates are actually vastly because young people play more sports and are more physically active.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  2% Josak? That's more than 6 million people you just flushed down the commode.
  
  Then you say it's not a hard problem to fix - but you don't tell us what the fix is.
  
  We've got big insurers already warning folks that their premiums could double or triple.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  And yet premiums have fallen in every state that has released the full cost analysis.
  
  It's easy to fix by simply adjusting the boundaries of who has to pay for the healthcare directly slightly.
  reply report
  68
  Cody Hodge5posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I can't wait for a year or two from now when this is hailed as one of the best things that has ever happened to America.
  
  What will conservatives say then?
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh they will continue to moan and gripe just like with all social programs.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I like your rosy outlook, Cody. It's young, fresh and optimistic. I hope you're not too disappointed when reality hits.
  
  reply report
  68
  Cody Hodge5posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I looked at some of the plans available in New York for next year....they aren't bad at all for what you are paying for.
  
  If you want to know something really funny...
  
  When I was a teenager, my views would have aligned perfectly with the GOP. If I were old enough, I would have voted for Bush the first time.
  
  As I get older and wiser, I shudder at what could have been.
  reply report
60
tirelesstravelerposted 10 years ago
The governor of California said this morning that we have to have a balanced budget. We can't spend money we don't have. If we have any excess it will all be absorbed by schools and the Affordable Healthcare Act. Why would this be? Do men have to have maternity care?
I would love this article to be true, but my mother told me if it sounded too good to be true, beware.
reply report
1. 94
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It might end up being true - California is going to find it pretty difficult to borrow much more, and the rest of the country is eventually going to get fed up with their crazy give-away programs and stop the free money from there as well.
  
  At that point California will have a balanced budget whether they like it or not.
  
  Didn't follow the maternity care comment, though???
  reply report
  60
  tirelesstravelerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We have a law that doesn't exempt men from the need for maternity care. Sorry to be so random, We have lots of laws that make healthcare more expensive, only they are called mandates. Thank you for seeing CA for the crazy state can be.
  reply report
  94
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How odd! I wonder why?
  
  The only thing I can really think of is that maternity is one of the things that drive up female medical costs over male. It's not PC to ever say such a terrible thing, and it certainly isn't PC to allow women to be charged more for insurance because their costs are higher, so we'll not only make the males have the same (worthless to them) coverage and thus help pay the costs of the more expensive female care.
  
  In a way, that's what Obamacare has done; require healthy young people to share in the cost of care for those that need and use it more.
  reply report
90
peoplepower73posted 10 years ago
One of the things people don't realize is when the uninsured have a medical problem they go to the ER. Who do you think pays for that? It is we the tax payers. That's even if they have a simple cold! Not only do we pay for it, but it backs up the waiting rooms and wait times for people that have real ER problems.
reply report
1. 0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see that the situation will change much, peoplepower. The ones who head to the ER are the ones who know they won't be paying.
  
  With Obamacare, the deductible and co-pay for those individuals is so high that nothing will change for them. Even if they're able to cut their grocery bill a few bucks to pay the subsidized premium - where are they going to get money for the deductible? And then the high co-pay?
  
  Obamacare is like putting a smiley-face sticker over the fuel gauge on your car's dash. It might make you happy to look at - but it won't fill up your tank. You're still going to run out of gas.
  
  Obamacare supporters like to condemn the detractors, but they don't seem to be able to answer the detractor's questions and concerns.
  reply report
84
psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago
Given that they would need to be pregnant to collect it, I don;t see the big deal. They are effectively exempted from receiving it. They natural pay to provide it. The whole point of insurance is that everyone pays for the joint needs of the group. Otherwise it would just be called "you pay for what you get" and everyone who actually had a large need would immediately declare bankruptcy.
reply report
1. 94
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Can't quite see maternity care as a need for the group called "men". If we're going to throw any needs at all into the pot, what about the need for food, clothing and shelter?
  
  The idea behind insurance is to prevent giant bills from ruining someone, not to pay for every little thing. To distribute those giant bills amongst all of us because we, too, might one day have them. It's a gamble - will you pay for that big bill for someone else or will you have someone else pay for your own giant bill. (Actually it's more of a refusal to gamble; rather than gamble it won't happen we agree to share the costs of whoever it DOES happen to. Each member will pay a far lesser cost, but slightly more than the average, in order to guarantee they will never have the big one.)
  
  Problem is that there is no gamble with maternity care for men - it is not possible that they will ever have that big bill.
  reply report
81
Wayne Brownposted 10 years ago
Look a bit closer and you might just decide that Governor Perry along with a handful of other governors is attempting to protect the citizens of his state from something which they cannot afford as taxpayers. Certainly you can hold up all the examples that you want of what California is going to provide and what New York is going to provide but at who's expense. The entire design of the state exchanges is to shift the burden of cost of Obamacare (at the discount level) to the local taxpayers of the state. The implementation was suppose to be a state expense, the building and staffing of the state exchanges is designed as state expense. Oh yeah, this thing might look good at the 30,000 ft. level as to what financial burdent the federal government is shouldering but when one looks at the potential damage financially at the state level....the numbers do not bode so well. If does not matter that you are getting an affordable premium for healthcare if that only translates to charging higher taxes at other levels in the state to pay that burden....there is a false premise of success woven into that lie. The only way real affordable healthcare comes about is to allow free-market competition and get the government out of our lives. Otherwise, the only thing that is being accomplished here is an expansion of the welfare state by those who will use the votes of the "gimme voters" to enhance their power and control over the bulk of the people. We need to wake up in this country. ~WB
reply report
1. 90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Your key phrase here is: "but when one looks at the potential damage financially at the state level....the numbers do not bode so well." That means you really don't know yet, it has the potential. It is still pure conjecture.
  
  "The only way real affordable healthcare comes about is to allow free-market competition and get the government out of our lives."
  
  We had free market competition and it didn't work. It allows the insurance companies to exploit the public and doctors and raise premiums to levels most people can't afford. The insurance companies are in it to increase their bottom line and without any regulations, they will skin the people.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
2. 74
  Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  G’day Wayne. I hope you are enjoying fair weather today.
  
  I did look closer, Wayne, and I learned the good governor has ambitions to run for high office in 2016 and, frankly, he does not give two hoots for his neediest constituents. The Dallas News observed, “While Gov. Rick Perry says he is focused on the upcoming legislative session, most believe his peripheral vision is filled with White House images.” Some doubt he is really focused on the needs of today’s Texans and they wonder, “whether his insistence on tightly held budget reins and fiercely conservative topics could sabotage efforts to fix looming state problems, such as deteriorating highways, water shortages, public school funding and higher education costs.” {1} Do you have any examples that you would like to hold up to show California and New York are not heralding the ultimate success of Obamacare? Put another way, do not tell us, Wayne, show us! The cost to Texas to participate in medicaid expansion is said to be $7 billion spread over 10 years. However, “the state of Texas is turning down billions of federal dollars that would have paid for health care coverage for 1.5 million poor Texans. By refusing to participate in Medicaid expansion, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, the state will leave on the table an estimated $100 billion over the next decade." {2} Voters are not only awake, Wayne, but they bristle when they hear disgruntled 2012 voters talk about the “gimme voters.” It is evidence that some conservatives are willing to repeat their errors from the 2012 contest. It is evidence some are clinging to the “47 percent of voters will chose Obama ‘no matter what’ fund raiser speech in Florida that contributed to Romney becoming the “47% candidate” at the polls. Those who refuse to let go of that mindset are dooming their party to fail again.
  
  CNN observed on the day following the election, “Romney lost embarrassingly among young people, African-Americans and Hispanics, a brutal reminder for Republicans that their party is ideologically out of tune with fast-growing segments of the population.” {3}
  
  Nice chatting with you, Wayne. Always be good and be careful.
  
  {1} http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics … agenda.ece
  {2} http://www.npr.org/2013/05/23/186303141 … 4&ft=1
  {3} http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/ … torysearch
  reply report
60
tirelesstravelerposted 10 years ago
Anytime it takes 2000 pages to define what you are going to do, then another 150 pages to define who is going to do what you defined in the first 2000 pages I am suspicious. Jerry Brown said Tuesday all the surplus the state gets will have to go into the A.C.A. My kid who will be 26 in November is completely screwed He will just about be he getting on his feet he will HAVE to have insurance. The least amount of insurance he will be able to get is $325 a month. Paying the $2,500 penalty will be cheaper than getting insurance, but the catch is If you don't have the correct paper to prove you have insurance, similar to a W2 form, the IRS will just take your income tax return. How many more pages does this add to the 67,000 pages of the IRS tax rules. The whole idea of the Affordable Healthcare Act is very good. My concern is it is beyond mired in red tape and the IRS and it isn't even started.
reply report
1. 77
  Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Couldn't your 26 year old son get a job that pays his benefits?
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A lot of people are self-employed or they work for small companies that do not offer benefits.
  
  In addition - all the hoopla you posted about the wonderful California plan - appears to be at best, misleading. At worst - rubbish.
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … by-64-146/
  reply report
  68
  Cody Hodge5posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  eHealthInsurance?
  
  They might as well have quoted the blogs that Romney used in the campaign.
  reply report
  60
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Nope that article is though.
  
  First it compares the cheapest plans before Obamacare to the cheapest plans under Obamacare, unsurprisingly even the worst plan under Obamacare is way better and a similar plan on the same site he uses for comparison is 35% more.
  
  Then he compares individual plans only rather than the average plan cost, which will fall.
  
  The he "forgets" to mention that unless your family makes more than $92 000 you won't pay the full price but have it subsidized.
  reply report
  90
  peoplepower73posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Excellent analysis. Also the author, Avik Roy, was the insurance plan adviser for Mitt Romney during his campaign.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Obama Care and State Exchanges

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Obama Care and State Exchanges

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies