jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (75 posts)

Obama Care and State Exchanges

  1. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 3 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/

    1. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in 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.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. peoplepower73 profile image85
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How sad.  Keep the poor from getting insurance so Rick Perry can get elected president.  What a sad commentary!

      2. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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!

        1. peoplepower73 profile image85
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I can see the campaign slogan now:
            Who are you voting for in 2016?
            I have to go P.P.!
            lol lol lol

            1. peoplepower73 profile image85
              peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Are you saying goodbye to me, or do you have to go or both?

              1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                OMG, PeoplePower.
                I was not thinking of your initials being PP.
                lol
                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.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image85
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's very clever.  I needed a good laugh!

        2. Quilligrapher profile image91
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in 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}
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/pub … e-end-near

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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

          2. HowardBThiname profile image88
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in 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.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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!
        smile

        1. peoplepower73 profile image85
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 3 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!!

    1. peoplepower73 profile image85
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why would anyone think to go to the WH site to learn about Obamacare?
        lol lol

        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.
        smile

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in 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.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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.
            sad

            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.
            smile

            1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
              Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in 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

              1. Mighty Mom profile image89
                Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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.

                1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
                  Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in 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

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image88
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

    2. HowardBThiname profile image88
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image85
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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

        1. HowardBThiname profile image88
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image85
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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."

          2. Mighty Mom profile image89
            Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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???

            1. HowardBThiname profile image88
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in 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.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image88
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, that's a side-step if I've ever seen one - and not a good one.

  3. Dr Billy Kidd profile image89
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 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&

    1. HowardBThiname profile image88
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Krugman.

      nuff said.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image85
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image88
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in 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.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image88
              HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Okay, your timeline makes sense. I'm glad to see that you and I agree on something.

              wink

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Oh it happens here and there - sometimes even I'm reasonable! big_smile

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in 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.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in 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.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in 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.

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image88
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

              2. HowardBThiname profile image88
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in 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.

              3. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in 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?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh they will continue to moan and gripe just like with all social programs.

                2. HowardBThiname profile image88
                  HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

                  wink

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in 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.

  4. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in 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???

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in 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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in 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.

  5. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 3 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.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image88
      HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in 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.

  7. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 3 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

    1. peoplepower73 profile image85
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in 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.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

    2. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in 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.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {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

  8. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 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.

    1. Mighty Mom profile image89
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Couldn't your 26 year old son get a job that pays his benefits?

      1. HowardBThiname profile image88
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in 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/

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          eHealthInsurance?

          They might as well have quoted the blogs that Romney used in the campaign.

        2. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in 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.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image85
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Excellent analysis.  Also the author, Avik Roy, was the insurance plan adviser for Mitt Romney during his campaign.

 
working