Affordable Care Act- That ugly little secret of the Republican Right

1. 79

   Credence2posted 11 years ago

   "Solving that conundrum exposes one of the ugly little secrets of the Republican right today — and one of many reasons why that movement no longer merits the honorable title of "conservative." For what we can now observe in practice is that the Republicans perversely prefer a corporate marketplace without competition over a marketplace with competition overseen by government"
   
   Check out the op-ed article below
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-love- … 00644.html

   replyreport
2. 59

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   I don't know what the people who wrote this article were smoking, but it must have been good. 
   California rates going down because they are dumping the high cost individual plans.  Just before July 4th United Healthcare notified their individual policy holders they were no longer going to provide single polices in California because they were too expensive.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/0 … 37396.html 
      Talk about competition? There is none in Californina.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for you input, I wonder what others have to say

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think I'm totally stupid,  and I don't understand this whole thing!   
         Wait..........I KNOW I'm not stupid, 'cause even the supposedly-brilliant Obama and his cronies who thunk up the stupid law don't understand it;  many of our Congresspeople haven't even read it;  and who the hay could understand it if they DID read it?!
         I wonder if they didn't just start writing random ideas down and pay no attention to how those ideas interact and/or conflict with each other and with the system we already had in effect.
         
         What I know is that United Healthcare approved me for a new medication for my R.A.  just last week,  and then the day after I got the med and started taking it,  I got a letter saying the pharmacy's review department had denied approval for it.     What's up with that?!      Now, I dunno what any of this means,   but I do know that "Obamacare" isn't gonna be any better than what we have now,  because it's all a bunch of red tape and twisted wires and high hoops that companies and employees have to jump through;   and Obama's twisted mess of legislation only makes the whole system even worse!
         
         What I can see is that,  once again,  Republicans are being blamed for something that the Democrats did.    How in the world is that even a valid argument that you're trying to put forth?!

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "but I do know that "Obamacare" isn't gonna be any better than what we have now,  because it's all a bunch of red tape and twisted wires and high hoops that companies and employees have to jump through;   and Obama's twisted mess of legislation only makes the whole system even worse!"
            
            That is not what I haeard over a series of articles that I have been seeing. Did you read the article posted? If you want your fortunes and very life left in the hands of the corporations and pharmaceuticals, keep voting GOP

            replyreport
         2. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Greeting Ms. Durham. How nice to see you.
            
            The Republican Party in the USA does not want Americans to know that Obamacare is working, insurance premiums are being slashed, and millions of Americans who could not afford insurance coverage in the past will now have access to affordable policies. If you do not know this by now, Ms. Durham, then you are living proof that the Republican blanket of silence has kept you in the dark.
            
            “The extraordinary decline in New York’s insurance rates for individual consumers demonstrates the profound promise of the Affordable Care Act,” says the New York Times{1} It goes on the say, “State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York. Beginning in October, individuals in New York City who now pay $1,000 a month or more for coverage will be able to shop for health insurance for as little as $308 monthly. With federal subsidies, the cost will be even lower.”
            
            Be sure to also read "Here’s why health insurance premiums are tumbling in New York" in the Washington Post. {2}
            
            Obamacare is already begun to fulfill its promises. 
            
            {1} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/healt … p&_r=0
            {2} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won … -new-york/

            replyreport
            1. 83

               GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Greetings Quill,
               With so many conflicting "authority" articles concerning rate and coverage details, I am a bit surprised you feel so comfortable being such a staunch defender of the "New York Rate reduction" phenomena.
               
               I'm not saying you are wrong, just that given your penchant for sourcing your opinions, your response is surprising.
               
               I have spent a lot of time researching HIX, (Health Insurance Exchanges), recently, and I am finding more questions than answers. And a lot of government and health organization "life is good" proclamations.
               
               For instance;
               Credence2 started this thread by posting an article touting a 29% rate reduction in California due to the inclusion of more insurance providers in the state's proposed HIX - his referenced link
               
               Yet, an immediate response offered a Huffpost article that appeared to document just the opposite - big insurers were declining participation. Hmmm??
               
               And between those two articles there was further confusion. It was stated that 13 insurers were participating in California's HIX - but only 7 were listed. More ???
               
               I am not posting these questions as evidence that the information is purposely misleading or wrong - just that I am finding it difficult to corroborate these rosy declarations.
               
               Another question would be whether or not the rates are affected by Federal grants to implement and operate the state exchanges. To date I have been unable to find specific data concerning exactly how these exchanges will work - all I can find is an explanation that they will operate a pool of insurers. How? Will they handle overhead costs that normally would have been the insurer's responsibility?
               
               For instance; New York has received over $340 million in Federal grants to implement and operate their exchange through 2014. (California was given $909 million in grants) What were those costs? Do those grant monies have anything to do with New York's dramatic rate decrease? What happens after 2014, more grants or higher rates? Or do the operational costs of the exchanges have nothing to do with the rates? I would welcome any input regarding this, and I will post any info I find. But those are still important questions.
               
               So far the Fed has pased out $3.5 Billion in HIX grants. source: Center on Budget Policies and Priorities
               
               Also, regarding New York, your link also links to a detailed rates chart, but again I feel I might be confused. The chart reads as if certain insurers will only insure folks in certain areas. The charts list 21 insurers, yet only 3 cover all of New York, while some only cover New York city. Of the others, many only cover as few as 3 or 4 areas in the state. ie. New York City, Mid-Hudson area, and Long Island.
               
               That poses a serious question for me - why? Why not statewide coverage?
               
               Another for instance; Aetna Life, a well-known company with an established reputation only covers 3 areas, while a company called Freelancers, (possibly Freelancers Union), covers all areas.
               
               Of course your trust in these early proclamations may be justified, but I am skeptical.
               
               Also, your link provides that there are only 17,000 privately insured individuals in New York, (2.6 million uninsured) Let's throw out that 17,000 number, since I do not think it is statistically significant in the lower-rate rational that greater numbers is what will allow the reduced rates. So, if the penalty for no insurance could be as low as $0, (for qualifying ind.) to $95 - $170 per year, AND you can enroll when you do get sick or injured, how much incentive is there for those 2.6 million to get insurance coverage from the HIX, even at reduced rates? Where will the greater numbers that provide the possibility of lower rates come from?
               
               Employees from businesses that drop healthcare coverage completely?
               
               Union members - the majority block of New York workers, but it appears now that unions are screaming for and getting waivers to opt out.
               
               What is the numeric basis for these state announced rates? What enrollment numbers did the state provide the insurers so they could calculate their rates?
               
               I know all this sounds as if I'm a doubting Thomas, but that's because I am.
               
               Obviously I am not a supporter of Obamacare, but I will applaud its success if the facts turn out to be as announced - but for me, the jury is still out on these rosy rate reduction announcements.
               
               And all the above doesn't even begin to address what's in the low-rate plans, because as yet I haven't been able to find any non-biased comparisons. If so many organizations want waivers to opt out, it would seem to imply the plans aren't such a good deal.
               
               Perhaps your enthusiastic support means you have found some more reliable information than I have. I would welcome anything you have that might help me develop a more informed opinion.
               
               GA
               
               ps. you start out putting the onus as naysayers on the Republicans, but have you been following the developing chorus of Democrats abandoning the program as more details come out?

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  AJReissigposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Sounds like picking and choosing what data supports the claim and throwing out what doesn't.  Don't be too hard on him; Obama does the same thing.  Oh wait, no he doesn't, Obama make stuff up and then reports it as fact.  My bad.

                  replyreport
            2. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Eh.....it's pretty obvious that, yes, individual insurance rates will go down;   the companies will be competing for clients!    But the thing is--------there could have been that kind of competition before,  regulation put in place already that would've helped people with the cost of insurance, WITHOUT making it where the government owns us.   Obamacare is totally unnecessary and is a catastrophe,  a mandate that isn't even Consitutional, no matter what the Courts are saying.   A lot of our Courts, including the Supreme Court,  have been basically bought and sold by the Obama machine.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  AJReissigposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The reason there wasn't competition was because of government.  If you looked at states where completion existed (Ohio), the price was far lower  than where there was none (California).  The states that had no competition were like that because of state mandates that granted virtual monopolies.

                  replyreport
         3. 59

            Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "What I know is that United Healthcare approved me for a new medication for my R.A.  just last week,  and then the day after I got the med and started taking it".
            
            And you think that's a better healthcare system? One where your insurance company decides your medication based upon the level of insurance cover you can afford?
            
            I've got a better idea; the government deducts 11% of your salary before you see it and your company pays 12% of your salary to a central pot of money that pays for all your healthcare needs whether that be seeing a doctor about the flu, receiving emergency medical care, or having brain surgery. Not only that  this pot of money pays your state pension, and unemployment benefits should your company decide that shareholder value is more important than you keeping your job. It's called.........National Insurance and operates in the free Western societies of Europe where the citizens are happy in the knowledge that their health and well being does not not lie within the whims of big corporations whose primary reason for existence is to profit shareholders.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               AJReissigposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I think the effect depends on your state and what rates were like before Obamacare.  In the case of California, they already had Obamacare, at least from the standpoint of what carriers were required to cover.  In my home state of Ohio, we used to have the right to purchase a plan that only covered essential healthcare.  But now that the plans are required to meet the "Obamacare standard", medical insurance has skyrocketed. 
               As far as the GOP is concerned, the leadership is a bunch of big government politicians who are in bed with big business, which makes them no different than the Democrats.  Oh sure they favor big military contractors and the oil lobby over big banks and the lawyer lobby, but those are only minor differences.  Neither party cares about things like freedom, liberty, or personal choice; about the only difference is that the democrats are a little more honest, as they make very clear that they think they can run your life better than you can.  And by the number of people who vote for them, I guess a lot of Americans believe that as well.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  At he end of the day notions about freedom to choose your healthcare plans with no interference from government are all very well, but when an unexpected health crisis hits, principles will not pay the medical bills or other cost of living bills when the medical bills become rather pressing. To know that if and when a sudden health issue arises that money and ability to pay just do not have to be considered because the costs are all taken care of must improve the chances of recovery due to the stress reduction.
                  
                  Another little known fact is that if any foreign national requires medical treatment whatever the level, whilst visiting the UK, the treatment is given completely free of charge. This is because of the principle that personal health is more important than the ability to pay.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Is that any medical need, or just emergency medical need? The U.S. also provides emergency medical care - regardless of ability to pay.
                     
                     Of course they will bill you - but you still get the care first. Does the UK give the care you mentioned free, or do they bill non-citizens too?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        It's all free as the UK citizens pay for the health service through national health contributions. I was watching the news last week and there are some within the government mooting the idea of charging foreign nationals for health care they receive whilst visting the country, but they acknowledge that the sums of money spent treating them are so tiny compared with the national healthcare budget. Doctors are opposed to the idea as they do not want to become 'part of the UK national border agency' where they have to spend time, effort and admin vetting who can and who cannot receive healthcare.

                        replyreport
                        1. 83

                           GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Ok, But are you talking about emergency care, or any medical care - like tonsillitis, for example?
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport