Obamacare marketplace premiums in Florida lower than expected

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;11240681:

seekerz;11240384:

I’m Texas but the definition of care does not differ here from anywhere else. Here, the ACA doesn’t mean that some will pay more and others less, it means that some will get care that they were not getting AT ALL. Therefore making available a way to pay the doctor does = improving care. Something is greater than zero, unless my math ability fails me.

Blessed are those who can complain about quality. Tons of people in my neck of the woods don’t even bother to seek care until illness is advanced, because of the cost - that includes even some minimum wage workers.

You have no clue what I’ve read but enjoy the guessing game. I have enough basis for my statement - let’s just leave it at that. I am not very familiar with the behavior of Medicaid pts as compared to those who have to pay premiums, but I would surmise that given the fact not all practices accept them, some people are forced to use the ER for primary care. My greater experience is with ‘frequent fliers’ in the ambulatory setting, with underlying mental/behavioral health issues which are not adequately addressed and which manifest as a minor physical ailment several times a month.

Are any of the people who are not getting care AT ALL part of the 30 million (likely more) who still won’t have coverage under Obamacare? Is there really going to be a difference? As with a lot of Obamacare, I think most of this is guesswork.

Quality actually does matter. I can’t say about other parts of the country, but around here anybody with any kind of coverage can access the very best care. The only people who have difficulty with it are the ones on Medicaid who hit the provider’s limits. That will be made worse with Obamacare.

I have read thousands of medical charts as one of my occupational duties, and I can assure you without the slightest doubt that Medicaid-covered people overutilize, including major overutilization of ERs. When something is free, people will utilize it even if they don’t really need it, based on convenience. Of imaginable interest, unnecessary ER utilization is frequently used to obtain drugs for recreational use that a person’s usual physician won’t prescribe. We may be seeing more of that. But I very much doubt we’ll see any less of it.

 

[kmcarl56]

If these were, indeed “facts”, you might have an argument. But they’re not. They’re all just conclusions without your having given the slightest foundation for them.

I might add that besides being without any factual basis at all, many of them are just plain wrong. I’ll give just one example. You assert that Obamacare will make insurance less expensive for all. Not even Obama claims that anymore. The CBO says it’s not so. It will be less expensive for some but much more expensive for others. It’s an income redistribution scheme, first and foremost.

Did you know, for example, that the “discretionary income” of a person making $100,000 will very nearly be the same as a person making $40,000 because of Obamacare. The reason is that the person making the lower amount will be heavily subsidized while the person making the higher income will face much higher premiums because of the mandates. And that’s without even considering that the person making $40,000 might be receiving some other kind of government benefit while the one making $100,000 definitely won’t be.

Now, if a person believes in leveling incomes (which obama apparently does except for his super-wealthy friends) that’s a good thing. If one does not believe in equalizing outcomes regardless of one’s efforts, then it’s not.

Okay. Okay. Okay! Let’s just go to socialized medicine then for all people, like Canada and England, and other countries, so that there are no more insurance companies to rip people off, and the doctors will be working for the federal government at standardize salaries instead of private practice, where they make millions, so phrarmaceutical companies can’t tell us what medications we can have.

I don’t like paying for insurance company executives’ vacation homes, Mercedes and Jaguars, country club memberships, shopping sprees at Macy’s, dinners at 5-star restaurants, etc., and paying the same to doctors’ for 5 minutes of their time for hundreds of dollars per visit of my hard-earned money.

I want my doctors to be more concerned about my health instead of how much they can charge the insurance company. I want all people to be treated equally, regardless of how much money they make or where they live.

I have received care through my county’s health care system and received excellent care. I never waited more than an hour to see my doctor. The laboratory and X-Ray Department was in the same building. The doctors, nurses, and other caregivers were all friendly and concerned with my health, not what I was paying. I had to pay a fee based on my income for every service I received. Children got their immunizations. Mothers got pre-natal care. The elderly were able to use their Medicare there, and received the preventive care that they needed, as well as the treatments needed for ailments common to their age.

Why are you so opposed to helping people? Are you a lobbyist for the insrance companies? …a lobbyist for furthering the Republican agenda to keep lower and middle class people in poverty, while the majority of Republicans make well over $200,000 a year?

Explain to me what you would do if you were very very ill, had no insurance, and had to go to the hospital for a life-threatening illness or injury. They admit you and you are in the hospital for weeks, have to have several surgeries, procedures, medications, etc. When you go home, you have follow-up visits with specialists and laboratores.

The bills keep coming in and they all want all of it right now. You haven’t worked in awhile and you are an hourly employee. You’ve lost your job because you were not able to work. There is little if no money to even put food on the table. You can’t pay a dime to any of them. The hospital and doctors turn your bills over to collection agencies who threaten you and call you 20 times a day. And now you have a pre-existing condition, so even if and when you are able to apply for insurance, they won’t give it to you due to that particular condition. Your dignity has been stripped from you. You have no more honor among men. You are just another loser trying to rip off the government, because now you are on unemployment.

Is that how Americans, living in the most powerful and weathiest nation in the world, should be treated? Is that what we want the world to see? Is that what we send our soldiers out to defend, this democracy which is for us, we the people, who own our own government? Think about it.

Learn all of the facts about both sides of the coin, before you put everyone in the same basket. I am glad if you have health insurance now. I am glad if you have an employer who pays for it. Not everyone has that luxery.
:banghead:
With love from your sister in Christ.

May God bless you and keep you in all you do and say today and for the rest of your life.

 

[Least]

Pointing out that you continue to disrespect people does not make any shoe fit me. You should be ashamed of the language of your posts, but by all means declare the state of your intellect and character to the world…

Right, I can’t call you a liar either.

Who’s paying you?

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Ridgerunner;11240323:

Care is not only about numbers of doctors or hospitals. Care is primarily about medical attention available to people. Right now many of the clinics in my area would welcome an infusion of patients - to be precise: paying

patients - even at Medicare rates. It would decrease the pressure of non-paying patients on area ERs and possibly even on (name removed by moderator)atient facilities.

So you mean doctors are putting reimbursement ahead of patient needs? That’s a shame if it’s true, but what is the alternative? Continue to provide incentives for ‘sick care’ to predominate over ‘wellness promotion’ on the strength of one study? For the patient, prevention is always better than cure, unless the prevention is not properly implemented.

For every solution, workable or not, the alternative is indeed relevant. I see you added quality in there, well yes - by implementing Meaningful Use of EHRs, the government is also seeking to ensure that docs actually practice what their books preach. Win-win IMO.

The biggest joke is there is no incentive to sign up for anyone, especially young people, and its success is contingent on signing up. Why pay just under $200/month as a 25 year old when I can wait until I have a seriosu need or injury, then literally sign up at the hospital. Why on earth did they allow this in a bill contingent on people nee4ding to sign up and pay the premiums?

 

[styrgwillidar]

seekerz;11240384:

The biggest joke is there is no incentive to sign up for anyone, especially young people, and its success is contingent on signing up. Why pay just under $200/month as a 25 year old when I can wait until I have a seriosu need or injury, then literally sign up at the hospital. Why on earth did they allow this in a bill contingent on people nee4ding to sign up and pay the premiums?

Because it was never intended to work. It was intended to create a crisis by breaking health-care sufficiently so progressives could implement their ‘real solution’-- single payer socialized medicine.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Julian Bashir;11241422:

Because it was never intended to work. It was intended to create a crisis by breaking health-care sufficiently so progressives could implement their ‘real solution’-- single payer socialized medicine.

True, but very risky. Selling a single-payer system to the public after having made promises and failed on your last attempt is tough. Assuming the ACA continues to eb the letwodn it is thus far, how do you convince people ou will get it right “this time.” And that assumes you control the House. Everything aligned perfectly the last time in 2009 - Democratic WH, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate.

It was 1993 the last time that was even possible.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay. Okay. Okay! Let’s just go to socialized medicine then for all people, like Canada and England, and other countries, so that there are no more insurance companies to rip people off, and the doctors will be working for the federal government at standardize salaries instead of private practice, where they make millions, so phrarmaceutical companies can’t tell us what medications we can have.

I don’t like paying for insurance company executives’ vacation homes, Mercedes and Jaguars, country club memberships, shopping sprees at Macy’s, dinners at 5-star restaurants, etc., and paying the same to doctors’ for 5 minutes of their time for hundreds of dollars per visit of my hard-earned money.

I want my doctors to be more concerned about my health instead of how much they can charge the insurance company. I want all people to be treated equally, regardless of how much money they make or where they live.

I have received care through my county’s health care system and received excellent care. I never waited more than an hour to see my doctor. The laboratory and X-Ray Department was in the same building. The doctors, nurses, and other caregivers were all friendly and concerned with my health, not what I was paying. I had to pay a fee based on my income for every service I received. Children got their immunizations. Mothers got pre-natal care. The elderly were able to use their Medicare there, and received the preventive care that they needed, as well as the treatments needed for ailments common to their age.

Why are you so opposed to helping people? Are you a lobbyist for the insrance companies? …a lobbyist for furthering the Republican agenda to keep lower and middle class people in poverty, while the majority of Republicans make well over $200,000 a year?

Explain to me what you would do if you were very very ill, had no insurance, and had to go to the hospital for a life-threatening illness or injury. They admit you and you are in the hospital for weeks, have to have several surgeries, procedures, medications, etc. When you go home, you have follow-up visits with specialists and laboratores.

The bills keep coming in and they all want all of it right now. You haven’t worked in awhile and you are an hourly employee. You’ve lost your job because you were not able to work. There is little if no money to even put food on the table. You can’t pay a dime to any of them. The hospital and doctors turn your bills over to collection agencies who threaten you and call you 20 times a day. And now you have a pre-existing condition, so even if and when you are able to apply for insurance, they won’t give it to you due to that particular condition. Your dignity has been stripped from you. You have no more honor among men. You are just another loser trying to rip off the government, because now you are on unemployment.

Is that how Americans, living in the most powerful and weathiest nation in the world, should be treated? Is that what we want the world to see? Is that what we send our soldiers out to defend, this democracy which is for us, we the people, who own our own government? Think about it.

Learn all of the facts about both sides of the coin, before you put everyone in the same basket. I am glad if you have health insurance now. I am glad if you have an employer who pays for it. Not everyone has that luxery.
:banghead:
With love from your sister in Christ.

May God bless you and keep you in all you do and say today and for the rest of your life.

Indisputably, some people do not presently have healthcare coverage. Nobody knows how many. Indisputably, 30 million will not have coverage under Obamacare. Some will save money under Obamacare, and some will lose; some to the extent of simply paying the fine instead, and doing without. Those things are known, and nobody really questions them.

If I had to choose a “socialized” system or die, I would definitely not choose those of England or Canada. More likely the French system, with which I don’t actually have much of an argument. One thing it does do that Obamacare won’t do, is ensure that there are enough doctors and facilities to treat people. It has preventives to overutilization. It also formally acknowledges that their system is a “two-tier” system. 2/3 of it is public and 1/3 of it is private. Which one you’re in is voluntary. We’re going to end up with at least a “two tier” system here,(probably more tiers than just two) but without providing any rational basis for it, and a good part of it isn’t going to be voluntary.

But short of that, I would have favored (and did favor) additional funding to the states’ forced placement programs so the premiums would be modest. Would have been cheaper and easier and wouldn’t have turned the whole medical system on its head. And it sure wouldn’t have forced orders of religious sisters to provide abortifacient and contraceptive coverage for themselves.

I’m not a lobbyist for insurance companies. I’m not even a Republican, though I do vote Republican because all the Dems are pro-abortion. I do live in a highly Republican district, (the Ozarks) and I can assure you that the majority of Repubs do NOT make $200,000/year. Even most poor people here are Republicans. You would probably have to know what the people are like here to understand that. But those reasons are also the same reasons why jobs are plentiful and almost all employers provide health insurance. We also have excellent physicians and facilities.

So maybe my view is colored by my background and culture. I’ll admit it probably does.

And I think you have a wrong idea about how much insurance companies make. And if you don’t think people are going to make big salaries off Obamacare, you ought to think it out again.

 

[Ridgerunner]

:banghead:
With love from your sister in Christ.

May God bless you and keep you in all you do and say today and for the rest of your life.

And don’t be banging your head like that. Might get a concussion.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Okay. Okay. Okay! Let’s just go to socialized medicine then for all people, like Canada and England, and other countries, so that there are no more insurance companies to rip people off, and the doctors will be working for the federal government at standardize salaries instead of private practice, where they make millions, so phrarmaceutical companies can’t tell us what medications we can have.

I don’t like paying for insurance company executives’ vacation homes, Mercedes and Jaguars, country club memberships, shopping sprees at Macy’s, dinners at 5-star restaurants, etc., and paying the same to doctors’ for 5 minutes of their time for hundreds of dollars per visit of my hard-earned money.

I want my doctors to be more concerned about my health instead of how much they can charge the insurance company. I want all people to be treated equally, regardless of how much money they make or where they live.

I have received care through my county’s health care system and received excellent care. I never waited more than an hour to see my doctor. The laboratory and X-Ray Department was in the same building. The doctors, nurses, and other caregivers were all friendly and concerned with my health, not what I was paying. I had to pay a fee based on my income for every service I received. Children got their immunizations. Mothers got pre-natal care. The elderly were able to use their Medicare there, and received the preventive care that they needed, as well as the treatments needed for ailments common to their age.

Why are you so opposed to helping people? Are you a lobbyist for the insrance companies? …a lobbyist for furthering the Republican agenda to keep lower and middle class people in poverty, while the majority of Republicans make well over $200,000 a year?

Explain to me what you would do if you were very very ill, had no insurance, and had to go to the hospital for a life-threatening illness or injury. They admit you and you are in the hospital for weeks, have to have several surgeries, procedures, medications, etc. When you go home, you have follow-up visits with specialists and laboratores.

The bills keep coming in and they all want all of it right now. You haven’t worked in awhile and you are an hourly employee. You’ve lost your job because you were not able to work. There is little if no money to even put food on the table. You can’t pay a dime to any of them. The hospital and doctors turn your bills over to collection agencies who threaten you and call you 20 times a day. And now you have a pre-existing condition, so even if and when you are able to apply for insurance, they won’t give it to you due to that particular condition. Your dignity has been stripped from you. You have no more honor among men. You are just another loser trying to rip off the government, because now you are on unemployment.

Is that how Americans, living in the most powerful and weathiest nation in the world, should be treated? Is that what we want the world to see? Is that what we send our soldiers out to defend, this democracy which is for us, we the people, who own our own government? Think about it.

Learn all of the facts about both sides of the coin, before you put everyone in the same basket. I am glad if you have health insurance now. I am glad if you have an employer who pays for it. Not everyone has that luxery.
:banghead:
With love from your sister in Christ.

May God bless you and keep you in all you do and say today and for the rest of your life.

That all sounds nice, but if it isn’t sustainable in terms of cost, availability of doctors, and quality of care, it means nothing. The ACA doesn’t fix those things, but I guess we should assume a worse solution is better than none at all. The goal is to make things better, not worse, which so far, it appears the ACA does in spades.

 

[styrgwillidar]

True, but very risky. Selling a single-payer system to the public after having made promises and failed on your last attempt is tough. Assuming the ACA continues to eb the letwodn it is thus far, how do you convince people ou will get it right “this time.” And that assumes you control the House. Everything aligned perfectly the last time in 2009 - Democratic WH, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate.

It was 1993 the last time that was even possible.

It’s playing long ball, like every social welfare program. It will be impossible to go back and put back the pieces. There will be a class of people who’ll become even more dependent on government and they’ll be used to justify expansion. Even if the progressives are not in power for a cycle or two, eventually they will be.

ETA: and there is no conservative counter, there is no right wing party. Only left and farther left. Different varieties of big government elitists.

All the faults will be laid at the feet of insurance companies or republicans or conservatives. They’ll be blamed for inhibiting/detracting/meddling to which all the negatives will be attributed. The failures will not be categorized as inherent inadequacies in the system and the approach, but due to other factors. And there will be those who buy the story that it will only work if the government is completely in charge because it was the private folks who messed up, not the government designed system.

 

[seekerz]

Julian Bashir;11241422:

Because it was never intended to work. It was intended to create a crisis by breaking health-care sufficiently so progressives could implement their ‘real solution’-- single payer socialized medicine.

I never said the thing your post appears to quote me as saying. I believe single-payer would be better (I’ve had socialized medicine and I rather like it), but there is nothing about the ACA that convinces me it wasn’t meant to work. It was modeled on the brainchild of a highly successful multimillionaire.

 

[seekerz]

And?

What happens to the 90 million people that have a Medicaid card that’s worthless because no one will take it? Think of it, we went from 30 million with no insurance to 90 million with no healthcare - how is that an improvement for the 1/3 the population or the national well being?

What happens to Medicaid depends on the State you live in. If your governor cares about expanding health care access for the poor, Medicaid will be expanded. Worst case scenario, if doctors absolutely refuse to take Medicaid? Why they’ll continue doing what those Obamacare opponents without alternatives to offer don’t seem to mind: using the ER as a clinic. Isn’t that what those without insurance/money have been doing anyway?

 

[seekerz]

seekerz;11241086:

Ridgerunner;11240681:

Are any of the people who are not getting care AT ALL part of the 30 million (likely more) who still won’t have coverage under Obamacare? Is there really going to be a difference? As with a lot of Obamacare, I think most of this is guesswork.

Quality actually does matter. I can’t say about other parts of the country, but around here anybody with any kind of coverage can access the very best care. The only people who have difficulty with it are the ones on Medicaid who hit the provider’s limits. That will be made worse with Obamacare.

I have read thousands of medical charts as one of my occupational duties, and I can assure you without the slightest doubt that Medicaid-covered people overutilize, including major overutilization of ERs. When something is free, people will utilize it even if they don’t really need it, based on convenience. Of imaginable interest, unnecessary ER utilization is frequently used to obtain drugs for recreational use that a person’s usual physician won’t prescribe. We may be seeing more of that. But I very much doubt we’ll see any less of it.

In other words, the worst that happens if Obamacare fails is that the status quo continues? How is that so bad - isn’t it what the Tea Party is determined to fight to keep? It can’t be that bad…surely?

 

[seekerz]

seekerz;11240384:

The biggest joke is there is no incentive to sign up for anyone, especially young people, and its success is contingent on signing up. Why pay just under $200/month as a 25 year old when I can wait until I have a seriosu need or injury, then literally sign up at the hospital. Why on earth did they allow this in a bill contingent on people nee4ding to sign up and pay the premiums?

Should they have said everyone must signup or face prosecution? For any demand, there must be an alternative or consequence if it is not met. Of course there is incentive to sign up - they’re called tax credits and for some people…well, I better not. Check out the Kaiser calculator and see.

 

[Julianna]

I really didn’t want to get into this game, but it looks like a civil discussion.

I went online and chatted with some Obamacare person…I had questions. None of which gave me a clear answer.

My husband (retired) and I (working) are covered now under FEHB, so we are fine except for the 4.4% raise in premiums for FY14 and the fact I haven’t had a raise in over 3 yrs., and recently lost $400.00 month when I was on furlough. (and we are facing that again).

I have “boomerang” kids. One out of college, 2 yrs., 2 degrees, no job. So that means he hasn’t filed a tax return in 4 yrs. total because he hasn’t been working. Also has HF autism and was recently turned down by SSDI and Medicaid/care whichever. So that is out. He is 29. (can’t be on our insurance)

I have another, working part time, who was told by her retail store chain that “NO ONE” will be working over 25 hrs a week. To the point, they laid off their bookkeepers and outsourced the office staff. Daughter is pregnant, due in January.

(I don’t need a morality lesson, so please stick to the topic…my daughter is pregnant, her fiancee is working full time (no health insurance) and they are living with us, as is adult/child #1)

For the first adult child, I was told since he didn’t file a tax return in the last 4 years he would be “exempt.” Ok, I never got the explanation of what that means. Does he still have to fill out the application or what? So many (unanswered questions).

For daughter, Jan 1st. both she and child would be covered and the baby would have her own health insurance. Her insurance would be based on the percentage she falls below the poverty line. (yeah at minimum wage and under 25 hours, she is there). No explanation of what she needs to do. She has filed tax returns for several years.

For fiancee…he has to file for his own and will pay based upon his tax returns and where he falls below the percentage of the poverty line.

Ok, nothing that was chatted on this website made sense enough for me to pass on the adult/children. For me, as of now, this is an “epic fail”.

My 84 yr old mother is on Medicaid, ss. whatever. She had to reverse mortgage her house to survive. My brother works at a grocery store and my sis in law at a daycare center. So they are just about the same boat.

I work for Uncle Sam and all I see is paperwork, paperwork, paperwork and slowwwww service processing. And since those of us who work for Sam are looking at furloughs “again”…we are none to zippy to process anything…

Oh and my family care doctor said he had to hire 12 additional admins to process the paperwork that will be coming in for Obamacare.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;11241341:

seekerz;11241086:

In other words, the worst that happens if Obamacare fails is that the status quo continues? How is that so bad - isn’t it what the Tea Party is determined to fight to keep? It can’t be that bad…surely?

I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said. No, the “status quo” will be finished. There won’t be any going back. We’ll have Obamacare for awhile, then something else when it tanks so badly few can stand it anymore. Me, I can’t stand it already because I won’t be able to provide my employees with group coverage anymore. But it will manifestly take others awhile longer to see that it’s a bad deal. For some, though, and I expect you might be one of them, because you seem pretty sure it will be. For you, it probably will be a good deal because it sounds like you will be subsidized by me and the others who will not be subsidized.

Just to clear one thing up. I will personally be fine. I can afford insurance and so can my partners, even though we will be subsidizine others and that burden might someday become entirely impossible to bear. But for now, it will actually save my partners and me money in our business because we are giving up on providing health insurance to our employees. You can only do so much when the government is your determined adversary.

The ones who I really do feel bad for are the truly poor, the elderly, the young and my own children and grandchildren. This country is now so “entitlement heavy” that the next generations are going to be in a bad way.

This puts me to mind of a post in another thread (maybe even this one) in which the poster said he had a conversation with a Swedish engineer who complained that Sweden is short of engineers. Why? Because of the entitlements and taxes, the only significant difference between the living of a waiter in a restaurant and an engineer in Sweden is that the engineer can probably own a car while the waiter probably can’t. So why slog through school and spend engineers’ hours working?

Some people in this country would be perfectly happy with that arrangement. Some wouldn’t be. I’m one of the latter, even though I won’t personally be all that much affected by it, human life being no longer than it is. But my children and grandchildren will be.

Income redistribution is always favored by the receivers. Not so much by the payers.

 

[SMGS127]

Oops… California will have 10th highest rates in US and in the article it says that Texas will come in below average…

So you pick the worst-run (by quite a lot) Democratically-controlled state vs the best-run (by quite a lot) Republican-controlled state? That’s scientific. Look at the averages.

Which state are you talking about? I didn’t reply to this part of your post before because I wanted to try to find out, but was unable to quickly.

Minnesota is the best cost-controlled state in the nation; it is also overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats.

For a young single person who might normally spend only $200 or less during the course of the year on health care? Yes. The cost is much higher than it should be acturarily since altho the elderly have 6x the health care costs of young people, the premiums can only be 3x those of young people.

Youth can go for the bronze plan if they’re extremely healthy; that costs even less than the numbers being quoted here (as all quotes here are averages from silver plans).

I think there’s a little more to the rates than whether there is an exchange or the color of the state!

Most of what I have read show that the states with the lowest rates will be those with the most insurance companies. I would suggest that the insurance companies decided to enter the states where they could make the most money…

I agree, which is why the states that control their own exchanges (mostly Democratic) are, on average, significantly cheaper than the states (mostly if not entirely Republican) that allowed the federal government to run their exchanges for them. Insurance companies don’t want to deal with states that have the federal government involved to such a high degree.

First, how accurate is that now? It was based on the 2004 election and 2005 financial figures.

And secondly, what are all those dollars about?

And thirdly, why would Democrats complain about this, seeing as they are the ones who are interested in seeing all this happen?

Democrats are only interested in seeing everyone have a chance to succeed at being able to make enough money to live. The fact that Republican states have some of the lowest social mobility opportunities causes their numbers to skyrocket. In addition, they make no efforts to curb obesity in schools (as evidenced by the pizza = vegetable catastrophe of the House Republicans), and Republican states have some of the highest health costs and lowest qualities of life in the country as a result. In addition, if you look at the public education system in New England vs. the Deep South, it’s striking at how much more efficient it is run in New England, which allows New England students to make a lot more out of their lives.

 

[St_Francis]

So you pick the worst-run (by quite a lot) Democratically-controlled state vs the best-run (by quite a lot) Republican-controlled state? That’s scientific. Look at the averages.

Oh, so now it’s better-run R states and worse-run D states… Somehow Insuspect in the long run D or R does not really make any difference at all.

And part of the reason Red states get fed dollars back is they tend to be more rural and have more trouble paying for federal un-funded mandates.

I agree, which is why the states that control their own exchanges (mostly Democratic) are, on average, significantly cheaper than the states (mostly if not entirely Republican) that allowed the federal government to run their exchanges for them. Insurance companies don’t want to deal with states that have the federal government involved to such a high degree.

In reality, the states which have the state exchanges are getting something like 90% of the increases in their costs paid for by the feds… this year. That percentage will go down each year until they have the entire burden in 10 years. The states that did not go for this did not buy a pig in a poke.

Democrats are only interested in seeing everyone have a chance to succeed at being able to make enough money to live.

In that case, why does everything the Dems set up to help the poor end up keeping them poor, as I previously pointed out?

The fact that Republican states have some of the lowest social mobility opportunities causes their numbers to skyrocket.

The fact that these states are more rural might have something to do with that.

In addition, they make no efforts to curb obesity in schools (as evidenced by the pizza = vegetable catastrophe of the House Republicans), and Republican states have some of the highest health costs and lowest qualities of life in the country as a result.

Oh dear… I lost all the links to this but if you want them I will get them. Maps of poverty rates and obesity rates correlate to a remarkable degree across the US, in New York State, and in Mississippi.

In addition, if you look at the public education system in New England vs. the Deep South, it’s striking at how much more efficient it is run in New England, which allows New England students to make a lot more out of their lives.

Don’t even get started on North/South issues…

 

[seekerz]

I really didn’t want to get into this game, but it looks like a civil discussion.

I went online and chatted with some Obamacare person…I had questions. None of which gave me a clear answer.

My husband (retired) and I (working) are covered now under FEHB, so we are fine except for the 4.4% raise in premiums for FY14 and the fact I haven’t had a raise in over 3 yrs., and recently lost $400.00 month when I was on furlough. (and we are facing that again).

I have “boomerang” kids. One out of college, 2 yrs., 2 degrees, no job. So that means he hasn’t filed a tax return in 4 yrs. total because he hasn’t been working. Also has HF autism and was recently turned down by SSDI and Medicaid/care whichever. So that is out. He is 29. (can’t be on our insurance)

I have another, working part time, who was told by her retail store chain that “NO ONE” will be working over 25 hrs a week. To the point, they laid off their bookkeepers and outsourced the office staff. Daughter is pregnant, due in January.

(I don’t need a morality lesson, so please stick to the topic…my daughter is pregnant, her fiancee is working full time (no health insurance) and they are living with us, as is adult/child #1)

For the first adult child, I was told since he didn’t file a tax return in the last 4 years he would be “exempt.” Ok, I never got the explanation of what that means. Does he still have to fill out the application or what? So many (unanswered questions).

For daughter, Jan 1st. both she and child would be covered and the baby would have her own health insurance. Her insurance would be based on the percentage she falls below the poverty line. (yeah at minimum wage and under 25 hours, she is there). No explanation of what she needs to do. She has filed tax returns for several years.

For fiancee…he has to file for his own and will pay based upon his tax returns and where he falls below the percentage of the poverty line.

Ok, nothing that was chatted on this website made sense enough for me to pass on the adult/children. For me, as of now, this is an “epic fail”.

My 84 yr old mother is on Medicaid, ss. whatever. She had to reverse mortgage her house to survive. My brother works at a grocery store and my sis in law at a daycare center. So they are just about the same boat.

I work for Uncle Sam and all I see is paperwork, paperwork, paperwork and slowwwww service processing. And since those of us who work for Sam are looking at furloughs “again”…we are none to zippy to process anything…

Oh and my family care doctor said he had to hire 12 additional admins to process the paperwork that will be coming in for Obamacare.

There is an answer for each of your questions at healthcare.gov but I’ll give it a brief try:

1. any eligible person may buy a plan on the marketplace and benefit from the income-based tax credits available; eligibility is determined by lack of employer-based insurance and a particular minimum income level (not sure if that varies from state to state but I would imagine so - you’d have to enter your state on the website to see)
2. those whose income levels fall below the minimum to qualify for the marketplace may be able to get Medicaid coverage if their state is expanding Medicaid.
3. according to my insurance companies, during open enrollment - whcih starts Oct 1st, people can also buy plans directly from the companies (I do believe I read that the pricing will be the same as on the marketplace) but they won’t be eligible for tax credits that way

As for your doctor, he must know something I don’t or your state must be different in its requirements, because I know plenty of docs and not one has had to hire a single person to prepare for Obamacare.

 

[seekerz]

seekerz;11241611:

Ridgerunner;11241341:

I’m not sure how you derived that from what I said. No, the “status quo” will be finished. There won’t be any going back. We’ll have Obamacare for awhile, then something else when it tanks so badly few can stand it anymore. Me, I can’t stand it already because I won’t be able to provide my employees with group coverage anymore. But it will manifestly take others awhile longer to see that it’s a bad deal. For some, though, and I expect you might be one of them, because you seem pretty sure it will be. For you, it probably will be a good deal because it sounds like you will be subsidized by me and the others who will not be subsidized.

Just to clear one thing up. I will personally be fine. I can afford insurance and so can my partners, even though we will be subsidizine others and that burden might someday become entirely impossible to bear. But for now, it will actually save my partners and me money in our business because we are giving up on providing health insurance to our employees. You can only do so much when the government is your determined adversary.

The ones who I really do feel bad for are the truly poor, the elderly, the young and my own children and grandchildren. This country is now so “entitlement heavy” that the next generations are going to be in a bad way.

This puts me to mind of a post in another thread (maybe even this one) in which the poster said he had a conversation with a Swedish engineer who complained that Sweden is short of engineers. Why? Because of the entitlements and taxes, the only significant difference between the living of a waiter in a restaurant and an engineer in Sweden is that the engineer can probably own a car while the waiter probably can’t. So why slog through school and spend engineers’ hours working?

Some people in this country would be perfectly happy with that arrangement. Some wouldn’t be. I’m one of the latter, even though I won’t personally be all that much affected by it, human life being no longer than it is. But my children and grandchildren will be.

Income redistribution is always favored by the receivers. Not so much by the payers.

There are worse things in life than income redistribution…like living in a country where the rich-poor divide is so huge that its a downright sin (speaking figurately…I think).