What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High Hopes of course, but in the case of the Affordabe Health Care Act (popularly known as ObamaCare... Not really. At the time of its passing, most if not all members of the legislative branch who voted for it, have actually not read it (in whole or in part). At the time of its signing into law by the president, the resulting un-expected consequences that we are now seeing, are just small flecks in the political horizon, and at the time that the Supremes were deliberating its constitutionality, it was still being pushed by the administration as a "penalty", not a Tax. The Supremes finally voted it constitutional based on the majority decision that is indeed a Tax, not a penalty.
Well the train wreck (as one Democratic senator colorfully and aptly described ObamaCare) is upon us. ... and the Law of Un-intended consequences will rule our summers and falls and winters and springs of our discontent.
Just wondering if the folks on this forum who are proponents of obamacare have actually ENROLLED.
A wreck possibly but not a total wreckage. But I can say that one of the many setback of Obamacare is not totally focusing on long term care part where it is specifically needed.
This whole mess was written by lawyers, for lawyers and to their advantage. As with the tax code and other acts such as medicare and social security you need a lawyer to interpret and prosecute any beef you have with the administrations of these programs. To find the loop holes in the language you have to understand lawyereese. When Nancy Pelosi said that we needed to pass it to find out what is in it she was not kidding. When the lawsuits begin we will start to learn the truth.
Is it a trainwreck because
a) "most if not all" of those who passed it had not read it when it passed
b) it has been deemed constitutional by SCOTUS but as a "tax" not a "penalty"
c) simply because you revel in vague and unsourced predictions of disaster?
@MM: It is a train wreck because most of its provisions are unenforceable because again of the unintended consequences. For example, Obama had decided on his own to postpone the employer mandate provision of the law until after the midterm elections in 2014...for reasons that are still unclear to most interested observers, i.e. employers with 50 or more employees. The individual mandate will become operative in Jan. 2014 but not the employer mandate, when by law those two provisions should be simultaneously implemented.
I am a practicing Pediatrician and the Medicaid reimbursement rate falls far below that of Medicare, thus not a lot of doctors are opting to provide medical care to Medicaid patients. Once all of these patients ( who are not able to provide medical insurance or coverage on their own) become part of a massive government subsidized medical program (which Obamacare is), the doctors who are providing medical care would be overwhelmed and may decide to opt out of being medical providers altogether resulting in effect to a lot of patients with no doctors to take care of their medical needs. As it is there is already an existing shortage of doctors in the U.S. which would be aggravated by (1) older doctors deciding to retire early rather than deal with the absurdities of ObamaCare, (2) Existing providers who may opt out altogether from being Medicaid providers, and (3) younger doctors, are deciding to go into the specialty fields rather than the generalist fields (i.e Internal Medicine, OB-GYN, Pediatrics, Gen Surgery)i.e. those who are just coming from their residency, thus again aggravating the already tenuous availability of the generalists who typically are the ones who take care of the general medical needs of patients.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Obama"care" is a health insurance and socioeconomic trainwreck! People refuse to see this, applauding it as "good". When it is too late, people will SEE Obama"care" for WHAT it IS! The slippery road to government intrusive socialized health care.
Mighty Mom, it's a train wreck because it was never fiscally sound to begin with.
Now, Obama is pushing back the launch date for the employer mandate, and it's been 4 years since the bill passed. They're just starting to realize that tasking employers with this burden is going to cost jobs. Never mind that we told them that constantly for the past four years, it's just now sinking in.
And there are other problems, too many to name, but suffice it to say that what the American citizens thought was a bill to help them - turns out to be a bill to fleece them and give Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry their hard-earned money.
I remember you making noise about how it was all going to work out so well - and I just shook my head at the time because I knew you didn't really understand the financial underpinnings that were going to take this plan down.
This plan is NOT salvageable. It's not even a decent start to a good national plan because it seeks to support three entire industries, pharmaceutical, healthcare and insurance.
The only way a national plan has a chance of working is if we kick the insurance industry to the curb. Screw 'em. Then, the govt. can offer enrollment in an "optional" federal plan with fees that force the insurance industry to come into competition. But, it would have to be optional. You can't try to shove it down anyone's throat because that's not how our country works - or should work.
This plan was about forcing taxpayers to comply with an incredibly shortsighted plan that was not fiscally sound. This failure rests solely in the laps of the Democrats.
Pushing back the employer mandate is a political move but it won't work forever. At some point, the Democrats are going to have to fish or cut bait.
History will not remember this President kindly - mostly because of this healthcare fiasco that will take us years to undo.
I tend to disagree. I think he will be remembered favourable and people won't understand why so many were against health care. I know we are already shaking our heads in Canada about that.
I wonder why so many Canadians go south ( not just during winter) for their health care needs. I do see a lot of them complaining about how screwed up America is, and when it really matters, i.e. when it's time to get their health back up on track they go to America, the screwed up palce. I personally konw of one Canadian who was so thankful that his American wife had an excellent insurance that allowed him to have his much need back surgery that he could not quite get enough on time on his Canadian health Insurance.
Do you have any kind of source for this. Because the story I see in the news is Americans going north to get drugs they can afford.
http://www.doctorsolve.com/blog/2010/07 … drugs.html
And south to Mexico to get their specialty work that is cheaper than in America.
These, of course, are people who have the ability to do this.
Even Palin had to admit she went to Canada for health services.
@MM: Going to Mexico for "specialty" or specialist work? Uhmm I doubt it. The US is still the place to go for highly specialized, technology driven medical treatments and procedures, that however expensive are still worth the price one, or the insurance company has to pay for; and if one absolutely has no insurance coverage, Medicaid will partly pay for it, however miniscule.
I agree that the cost of medication here in the US have become so expensive. I don't blame some who go North or South for their prescriptions... but I don't think Obamacare will solve that problem at all unless and until some kind of competitive pricing mechanism is put in place for drug companies/pharmacy outlets to rein in the their unfettered ability to put a higher price tag on these drugs.
Psycheskinner, part of the new bill will eventually restrict Americans from buying Canadian, Mexican or oversea meds. That's because to get Big Pharma on board, the Democrats had to give them some assurance that they would not have extraneous competition.
We're a free market - or we used to be, rather, but this new plan is going to be impossible to bankroll.
Not as many as you think go to the US for care. It's mostly for selective surgery and they don't want to wait. I am very happy with the care I receive and received when I had breast cancer.
Uinvited Writer, we're not "against healthcare," we're just against this fiasco that isn't fiscally feasible. This whole mess was started with the excuse of providing "affordable healthcare," but that ship already sailed. Premiums have more than doubled in some cases already, deductibles and co-pays are outrageous and now folks who thought they would get care through their employers next year have been told they won't, compliments of President Obama. To further rub salt in the wound - after those folks find out they won't get the care they thought they would - unless the personal mandate is pushed back, they will be forced to fork over the money to buy their own policies.
It's a mess. A complete mess.
Obama hung his hat on this - and now it's coming back to bite him in the rear end.
Pretty much. Once people see how good the program is, they won't believe that so many people were once against it.
Unfortunately, its only socialism if you want to give people an option to get healthcare. If someone were to point out, for example, how much money we waste on defense spending each year, you would get run out of the room as unpatriotic.
Go read the healthcare.gov facebook page. Plenty of people are seeing how 'good' it is already.
The average 30 year old male is seeing how 'good' it is in the form of a 240% increase in his premiums.
Yea, saw it already....more exaggeration and talking points.
As a 29 yr old male, I can guarantee that I'm paying less or roughly what I would pay if I had an employer.
It's not exaggeration. Those figures are based off of studies, not a single person. If you are paying less, then it is because you are getting subsidized by people who make more money. It's as simple as that.
Just about the only people who I see being happy about this are people who are getting subsidized. The rest of people(the majority), are seeing their bills go up, a lot.
On the new market, I would have to pay over $180 to get the same kind of coverage I could get for $90 this year. What are you going to pay next year?
But I'm not getting subsidized. In fact, I'd qualify as one of the "makers" in this country.
Ok, do you care to share your previous and coming premiums? Because if you're not getting subsidized, then something doesn't add up. You can go look at any state, and look at current plans for this year compared to plans for next year, and without subsidies they go up.
I wasn't insured last year, but in previous years when I could have had insurance the cost would have been at least $50 a week. That was mostly because my previous employers didn't cover much of the cost at all. In New York, I can get a policy for about $230 a month and I think there are still state health plans that offer coverage for less than that.
Also, if you get your coverage through an employer, you're getting subsidized as well. That's probably why coverage is going up for so many people. In addition, you may not have had the same level of care that you would be getting through a policy offered on the exchange.
I think a lot of people are just seeing the price and not truly thinking about what they are getting or why their coverage may have been so low to begin with.
Ok, there's a lot of opinion in there. You think what people are seeing, etc...
What people actually see though are facts. For instance, a family of 4 whose insurance goes up by $20/month, but whose deductibles double, and coverage remains the same. Or a family of 4 whose coverage and deductibles stay the same, but their premiums go up $500/month.
Isn't NY subsidizing every plan? I read an article about that but can't remember the details. If they are, then that's not a true cost, but no matter, the average is still going up nation wide.
Plans for who?
When insurers could cherry pick which INDIVIDUALS they would deign to cover, of course they could
set their rates accordingly.
Now that they have to insure more people -- the whole idea -- they are assuming a bigger risk. And they are being forced to include a set of benefits in the plans they offer through the exchanges.
If you don't want to buy there, you don't have to. Go see what your insurer of choice is offering OFF the exchange. You may still get a bargain plan. It will not include all the required benefits of the exchange planse, I'm guessing tho. But that may be just fine with you.
Point being, if you are healthy and an insurer has insured you before you are more than welcome to shop OUT OF THE EXCHANGE. Or KEEP YOUR CURRENT COVERAGE (which I may do but I need to compare with what I can get through Obamacare. Is it COMPARABLE in coverage as well as price? Or am I trading a few $ for less coverage? Read the fine print, as always with insurance).
Just for kicks, let's talk about how much healthcare and the military cost America each year.
2.6 trillion dollars are spent annually on healthcare in America.
750 billion dollars are spent annually on the military, during wartime.
People mention how expensive the wars have been, how expensive the military is. They're actually right to be concerned about wasteful military expenditures. Unfortunately, the healthcare industry dwarfs military spending.
Your healthcare - sponsored by the same people who can't balance the budget, can't agree upon any budget, and can't stop spending money we don't have.
That's not my point, the point is that the right is ready to take away social security, medicare and the like, but act as if you have committed blasphemy if God forbid a few million dollars of military spending were cut.
Yeah, both sides are full of hypocrites, incompetent leaders, and corrupt politicians.
We could scale our military spending back a looooong ways and still lead the world. Of course, that would partially require that we be efficient with it(no more $90,000 curtains for a secretary's home).
This isn't true with me. I'm for cuts in many, many areas, including the military. I want the strongest military in the world, but I also know that every dollar spent on the military takes away from balancing the budget, infrastructure building, and taking care of business in America.
Now that we agree on cuts in military spending, may we also agree that our spending is out of control, and we need to trim entitlements, foreign aid, and domestic spending too? Let's make those cuts and address the enormous potential cost of Obamacare.
Not sure where you got your military vs. healthcare numbers.
They're running about neck and neck, with healthcare higher.
This is a really fun site with interactive "games" (play budget analyst against Brookings Institute) and slice and dice the numbers any way you want.
They even have a Tea Party Briefing -- yes, if there was any doubt, they DO want to return us to 1913!!
I was also wondering what specifically was being considered wreckage here?
Thusfar, the main concern seems to be that individuals who opt not to buy insurance will pay a $95 tax.
Sounds good to me. Anyone can need care, so everyone should pay by some mechanism.
@MM: If you think that the $95.00 tax that you mentioned above is the only tax (ooops ...penalty) that anyone would incur via Obama care... you are utterly and sadly mistaken or misinformed or both.
If you choose not to purchase health insurance despite the individual mandate,
that is the penalty you pay $95 or 1% of earnings, whichever is greater.
You are also right that you do stand to lose much more.
Not everyone will be put on Medicaid under Obamacare.
There are private insurers competing for the business of those people who
are not eligible for Medicaid (although more people will be Medicaid egigible as income requirements are relaxed).
So if you choose not to get insurance, you will be living under the same risk you have lived under before.
Private paying for any health care services you do use.
Which is what bankrupts middle class (if there are any of those left anymore) families.
You have too many assets to get charity care.
You pay the rack rate.
I don't know about others here, but my recent 2 day hospital stay would have wiped me out.
$1800 just for the ambulance ride (10 minutes, only oxygen provided).
$26,000 for the hospital charges.
I don't have the physician charges handy -- those are separate.
Even if I was able to negotiate with the hospital for some $ off, that is a big chunk of change I don't have laying around the house.
And what if 2 or more family members needed MRIs or outpatient surgery or God forbid, hospitalization or cancer or another serious illness in the same year???
Focus on Obamcare seems to always bifurcate between anger at more people being put on Medicaid.
And that is true.
The long-term benefits of a healthier population are documented but a subject for another thread.
On the other side is what about the poor employers who will go broke offering health insurance to their employees?
Fair enough. Not that they are evil. But if their profit per employee is so low they simply can't, they cant. I would rather they stay in business to employ Americans.
Maybe those low-wage earners will now be able to either go onto the Medicaid plan or buy from the exchanges with subsidies from Obamacare.
Maybe that is a better solution anyway.
I have NO sympathy for the insurance "community" as I've heard it termed. They have killed too many people by denying coverage.
I worry about a health care system that throws pills at symptoms instead of figuring out the cause.
We need to emphasize wellness and prevention and not wait till a condition gets chronic, when it is much more expensive to treat.
That paradigm is being shifted under Obamacare.
Aso to who pays for health care?
I have always advocated taking the monkey of health benefits off employers completely.
I feel it is a drag on their competitiveness. if no one had to offer benefits, it would no longer be a recruiting necessity.
"......or buy from the exchanges with subsidies from Obamacare"...
Where do you think those subsidies are going to come from? Obama has already raided Medicare somewhere to the tune of $675 billion just to partially finance the initial implementation. This amount comes nowhere near the price tag of $1.2 trillion that the CBO projected for ObamaCare's full implementation for the first few years alone.
A case in point: Obamacare mandates the provision for "long term care". Those who are in the know would tell you that providing for "long term care" for people with chronic lingering illness such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other lingering degenerative neurologic diseases, as well as chronic medical disorders such as kidney failure, diabetes, stroke, hypertension etc. is a very expensive proposition, whether they are being taken cared of at home, hospice, nursing home, rehab, or residential facilities. The provision will not be enforced, as per the law's specific provision, until 10 years from its intial implementation, but t axes will be levied on all tax paying Americans, immediately starting the intial implementation of the other provisions of ObamaCare that are not in anyway related to "long term care". So the question arises: why are we being taxed for a provision that is not even going to be enforced 10 years from now?
1. Who exactly do you think is paying for long-term care now?
You're a pediatrician.
Surely you have tax planning attorneys who have clued you in on the nifty trick of spending down
your assets so you can "appear poor" and qualify for Medicaid.
If you're not dishonest enough to do that yourself, get yourself a conservator, public guardian or fiduciary who know exactly how it's done -- whether the family wants it or not.
2. The long-term care provision is no longer in Obamacare and has not been for some time.
@MM: That is stunning news to me. So who made the decision to eliminate the long term care provision and what were the basis for such a decision? This is precisely what is so willy-nilly about Obama care, thus a train wreck, when certain provisions in the law are just thrown aside because they have become burdensome to Obama's political life.
As far as I am concerned, the long term care provision is one of the better ideas included in Obamacare. My sole objection was that we should not be paying taxes for a provision that would not be implemented until several years from now,.
I understand, A. Villarasa.
It is quite difficult to speak with any certainty about any aspect of Obamacare -- and that includes both sides of the argument. Always best to look it up. What we think we know is not always what is .
When I saw your post I was actually excited that LTC would be included. So I went and looked it up.
Alas, I have been having trouble with grabbing links and gave up in frustration and didn't source. Sorry.
Here's one of the stories.
Apparently this is not new news. 2011...
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/long-t … /id/414546
I only WISH a $95 penalty was the sticking point.
It's not. That would be a breeze to overcome.
Remember when the penalty wasn't a tax? Until it was?
Guess what? Obamacare originated in the Senate, the Senate is not legally allowed to levy any taxes. Only the House can do that. The goons have twisted and turned things so much they are unrecognizable, and no one seems to be looking at the basic facts of the whole thing and that it is unlawful and unconstitutional in the extreme.
No one cares about the $95 penalty. It's what comes in the years after. And for those who scrimp and save to pay the premiums of a Bronze plan - they're rewarded by having to pay 40% of their medical costs. Wow. What a plan/
This thread should be called, "The Trainwreck that is the Republican Party"
Yes, God forbid the United States might pay attention to -- let alone model - what other "socialist" countries are doing. The fact is, our system as it is is not working, is costing Americans a fortune (8% of GDP), and is also making us less competitive globally. See below.
Oh right. I forgot. We are the EXCEPTIONAL nation, so we need not care that others are wiping the floor with us.
We're aok as long as we cling to our guns, religion and anti-Obamacare sloganeering.
I got my healthcare -- f you uninsured moochers.
Or, you'll pry my gun out of my cold dead hands and force me to buy health insurance against my will at that same time. Meanwhile, you pay your car insurance and home insurance premiums to PRIVATE insurers (JUST like the ones offering plans in Obamacare exchanges, btw) without blinking an eye.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad to see otherwise intelligent people falling hook, line and sinker for a smear campaign engineered and bought by the Kochs and their cronies.
Read more: http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehasting … z2gXHKC0WY
Excerpt: "... the countries with a higher ratio of social to health expenditures get better health outcomes, notably higher life expectancies and lower infant and maternal mortality rates. The evidence seems undeniable: good welfare policies produce healthier populations."
The topic of the healthcare system in the US is a complicated one. You can't boil it down to total costs, or private vs. socialist, or any other single aspect. Everything has to be considered.
Nobody does that though.
I doubt there will be super-huge effects of any kind. A section of the population will get access to insurance and stop using the emergency room as their main go to carer. That'll probably be good but not earth shattering for the country as a whole. Some employers will squeeze the extra money they need from their workers. That'll probably be bad, but ditto.
Actually, mighty, the most recent info from the World Health organization has the cost of American healthcare taking up 17.2% of the GDP, and at least $3,000 more per capita than the universal healthcare in other countries. In fact, it ranks 37th, just below Costa Rica.
Here's all the info people need. And it was the World Bank, not the World Health Organization (for the part about cost. The W.H.O. states the ranking of the U.S.)
Had everybody had an insurance Obamacare would have had no purpose.
That sure is a simple answer to a very complex problem. The average health insurance premium for family coverage has more than doubled over the past decade to $13,770 a year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Combine that with the huge loss of jobs and it is a little more complex than your answer. Most healthcare woes are tied to the reduction or lack of benefits now offered by employers. Is Obamacare going to help? Minutely I guess if you take into consideration that those without jobs have nothing to base a rate on and must apply for Medicaid.
Why should anyone have insurance? If insurance ceased to exist - medical costs would drop to where they were once again affordable.
by Judy Specht 2 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
by Susan Reid 5 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?Is your state running its own exchange ... ...or is it...
by OLYHOOCH 6 years ago
This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,, Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election season. June 30, 2012 A Surgeon Cuts to the Heart of the ObamaCare Nightmare By...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 months ago
Do you believe that the nuisance known as Obamacare will finally be repealed? Why? Why not?I believe that the government SHOULD NOT be in private affairs such as health care. I believe that health care is the sole responsibility of the individual. If individuals want health care,...
by edita 6 years ago
Do you think ObamaCare is constitutional? Why?
by Peeples 6 years ago
Curious as to what people who are against everyone having healthcare think should be done for those who really can't afford healthcare. What are the other options? Continue down the same road we are on now?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|