Obamacare

[teeboy]

I thought Obamacare would be a good thing for the United States. However, this law is ridiculous. The paperwork and administration of this law, which needs overhaul, is ridiculous. The “Marketplace” is a ridiculous concept and their employees don’t follow through. The premium on one marketplace policy has roughly quadrupled from 2014 to 2015, and it is no longer affordable to those of us who could have used it. Obtaining Obamacare takes as much time as doing one’s taxes. It’s a nightmare.

I’d prefer to just not have Obamacare rather than take the risk of owing the government back thousands of dollars in the event I find a job for which I can earn what I am worth. I’d prefer to just not have Obamacare rather than dealing with the paperwork and phonecalls.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I thought Obamacare would be a good thing for the United States. However, this law is ridiculous. The paperwork and administration of this law, which needs overhaul, is ridiculous. The “Marketplace” is a ridiculous concept and their employees don’t follow through. The premium on one marketplace policy has roughly quadrupled from 2014 to 2015, and it is no longer affordable to those of us who could have used it. Obtaining Obamacare takes as much time as doing one’s taxes. It’s a nightmare.

I’d prefer to just not have Obamacare rather than take the risk of owing the government back thousands of dollars in the event I find a job for which I can earn what I am worth. I’d prefer to just not have Obamacare rather than dealing with the paperwork and phonecalls.

I’m confused by what the prior means by “marketplace”. there’s nothing free market about the government interfering at this level in 1/6 of the economy.

Listen, most federal government programs are disasters. That’s why in the US the Founders were skeptical of big government. It just doesn’t work for the whole of society.

If programs exist at the state level, well, that’s better than federal control because at least people have the neighboring state option.

After RomneyCare and then ObamaCare were implemented in MA, I heard some people were going to NH clinics.

And I do know that Minnesota has a program called MinnesotaCare which seems to be a much better model than RomneyCare or ObamaCare.

The biggest problem with government though is that it doesn’t have to be checked by the free market.

 

[brian_custer]

obamacare or its many mutations is just a govt attempt to absorb the revenue going into healthcare and then to dispense on some sort of regulated basis

you all realize our government is bankrupt & is desperate to absorb any income stream it can, right?

 

[Rhubarb]

I guess I shouldn’t chime in because there are only 3 people of whose health care situation and finances I’m aware of. My health care is dealt with by my university and the cost is folded into tuition. My grandmother’s health care is part of a pension she’s been collecting since the 80s and medicare. But prior to the ACA, my mother was straight up uninsurable. She could get in on employee programs but it was still prohibitively expensive. Twice the cost of her morgage payment. Since the ACA her bills have gone down and she can’t be denied coverage. Now, I don’t expect anyone to give a rip about my mother. My mother is a stranger, a faceless statistic. But to me, her getting her medication and being able to see a doctor is more important than paperwork or tax form headaches.

I’m not saying post-ACA is perfect. But I know prior to ACA was not good either. I guess it depends on point of view.

 

[Catholic1954]

This administration had no business sticking its nose into my health care. If the government wanted to offer medical insurance (not the business of government anyway) to the uninsured, the democrats could have just expanded the Medicare program to include all Americans; but no, they had to mess it up, complicate things and force citizens into paying much more for less. Any law that is thousand of pages long, instead of one or two is not good.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I thought Obamacare would be a good thing for the United States. However, this law is ridiculous. The paperwork and administration of this law, which needs overhaul, is ridiculous. The “Marketplace” is a ridiculous concept and their employees don’t follow through. The premium on one marketplace policy has roughly quadrupled from 2014 to 2015, and it is no longer affordable to those of us who could have used it. Obtaining Obamacare takes as much time as doing one’s taxes. It’s a nightmare.

I’d prefer to just not have Obamacare rather than take the risk of owing the government back thousands of dollars in the event I find a job for which I can earn what I am worth. I’d prefer to just not have Obamacare rather than dealing with the paperwork and phonecalls.

I am glad you have come around to see the law from the practical standpoint the critics had been stating from its introduction. As you have seen, from a ground level perspective it is not so good.

Pax

 

[teeboy]

obamacare or its many mutations is just a govt attempt to absorb the revenue going into healthcare and then to dispense on some sort of regulated basis

you all realize our government is bankrupt & is desperate to absorb any income stream it can, right?

It won’t be bankrupt as long as it has the power to take your property and to take away your other rights.

 

[teeboy]

This administration had no business sticking its nose into my health care. If the government wanted to offer medical insurance (not the business of government anyway) to the uninsured, the democrats could have just expanded the Medicare program to include all Americans; but no, they had to mess it up, complicate things and force citizens into paying much more for less. Any law that is thousand of pages long, instead of one or two is not good.

It’s the codified law that I am interested in; the only part of which I am familiar is section 36B of Title 26 of the United States Code. The implementation of that piece of law by the administration has been a complete flop. BTW, the original bill has hardly any effect anymore, that happens to all bills once they become codified.

 

[teeboy]

I am glad you have come around to see the law from the practical standpoint the critics had been stating from its introduction. As you have seen, from a ground level perspective it is not so good.

Pax

Ideally, we would all be cared for in our health. Practically, it just isn’t going to happen.

Thanks for your post.

 

[7_Sorrows]

My medical expenses last year were under $20, but since I only had insurance half the year, I will be fined $63 unless I qualify for hardship exemption.
With people’s hours being cut back how are they expected to afford the affordable care act insurance or obamacare? I thought the rates were high and the deductibles are high too.
There is nothing about Obamacare that I like and now the government wants to control the internet too!

 

[teeboy]

My medical expenses last year were under $20, but since I only had insurance half the year, I will be fined $63 unless I qualify for hardship exemption.
With people’s hours being cut back how are they expected to afford the affordable care act insurance or obamacare? I thought the rates were high and the deductibles are high too.
There is nothing about Obamacare that I like and now the government wants to control the internet too!

Like I said previously, one “marketplace policy” quadrupled in its premium from 2014 to 2015. This policy happened to be my policy. Therefore, I dropped Obamacare, yet I continued to receive premium notices from a BlueCross Liscensee. The “Marketplace employees” have not followed thorugh on anything they have told me they were going to do. And recently, I received an email stating to the effect that I have to delay doing my tax return because they sent me an incorrect 1095 form; however, I have yet to receive a 1095 form and couldn’t do my taxes anyway. So now, the refund that I have been counting on is delayed even further so that Uncle Sam (who isn’t my Uncle) can float his bank account because he spends more than he takes in, and his Treasurer hasn’t gotten around to issuing the treasury bills and notes that he needs so badly. So, Uncle Sam has trouble meeting his obligations and giving what is due to whom it is due in due time.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I guess I shouldn’t chime in because there are only 3 people of whose health care situation and finances I’m aware of. My health care is dealt with by my university and the cost is folded into tuition. My grandmother’s health care is part of a pension she’s been collecting since the 80s and medicare. But prior to the ACA, my mother was straight up uninsurable. She could get in on employee programs but it was still prohibitively expensive. Twice the cost of her morgage payment. Since the ACA her bills have gone down and she can’t be denied coverage. Now, I don’t expect anyone to give a rip about my mother. My mother is a stranger, a faceless statistic. But to me, her getting her medication and being able to see a doctor is more important than paperwork or tax form headaches.

I’m not saying post-ACA is perfect. But I know prior to ACA was not good either. I guess it depends on point of view.

I give do a rip about your mother and it took big government intervention to get her insured and the care she needs. But the entire ACA is so big and comprehensive I don’t think anyone at all knows all about it and how it will turn out. A certin level of care needs to be guaranteed to everyone (and not just last minute ER care). But how to pay for it?

Ten of the 11 states with the biggest declines in their uninsured rates accepted the healthcare law’s Medicaid expansion, which provides safety-net coverage for low-income residents, mainly adults with no children living at home. Topping the list were Arkansas and Kentucky, with double-digit decreases.

modernhealthcare.com/article/20150224/NEWS/302249969/uninsured-rate-hit-new-low-in-2014-survey

 

[Sunbreak]

This administration had no business sticking its nose into my health care. If the government wanted to offer medical insurance (not the business of government anyway) to the uninsured, the democrats could have just expanded the Medicare program to include all Americans; but no, they had to mess it up, complicate things and force citizens into paying much more for less. Any law that is thousand of pages long, instead of one or two is not good.

No, the Democrats could not have just expanded Medicare because there was such an uproar by the Republicans about “socialized medicine”. So they worked with the free market insurers. People, it is the insurance companies that decide what they are going to charge. They decided to charge more to accommodate additional requirements. If anything, the state insurance hearings will reduce the percentage increases the insurers request every year unless they are found to be justified. Yes, if you include everyone that was previously considered uninsurable, the rates will for everyone will go up. I haven’t heard Republicans come up with a better plan and the “free market” insurance before Obamacare was totally unacceptable. No one should be denied medical coverage. No one should have to file bankruptcy because of medical bills. Health care should not be considered a luxury item like a mercedes car.

 

[JSSD]

But prior to the ACA, my mother was straight up uninsurable. She could get in on employee programs but it was still prohibitively expensive. Twice the cost of her morgage payment. Since the ACA her bills have gone down and she can’t be denied coverage. Now, I don’t expect anyone to give a rip about my mother. My mother is a stranger, a faceless statistic. But to me, her getting her medication and being able to see a doctor is more important than paperwork or tax form headaches.

Of course it is because the burden of “paperwork or tax form headaches” isn’t proportional to the cost.

You are partially correct in that you mother is a faceless statistic, but not a stranger. Rather, she is a stratifiable risk. Her circumstances are unfair, and she likely did not ask for [pre-existing disease]. Many of you know this, but the theory of insurance is based on predictable risk pools.

Would you feel it is fair for your auto insurance to be the same cost as a person who wrecked two Ferraris? Would you feel it is fair that a 20 year old pay the same life insurance premium as a 65 year old? I’m assuming you wouldn’t find that fair and equitable, but that is essentially what the PPACA is forcing upon the risk pool, which is the entire paying population. You can argue autos are a choice and diseases are not, but I’d argue that gets grey quickly when you consider the vegan runner vs the obese person who doesn’t exercise and likes smoking, drinking, and has a high stress job. The life insurance models would agree with me, age being equal.

As such, you can imagine why this might be unpopular, perceived to be unfair, with folks who have had different luck or made different life choices. The carrier itself may or may not be getting a subsidy and it passes the cost on to the pool, so they are far, far less upset.

 

[styrgwillidar]

…
No one should have to file bankruptcy because of medical bills.
…

Actually, the majority of folks who were counted as having to file bankruptcy for medical bills filed because the primary earner for the family died. It wasn’t the bills, it was the cessation of income. Problem with a lot of the figures thrown around is how folks come up with the figures.

 

[Rau]

It is a good thing that the availability of healthcare is not subject to the financial resources of individuals. But the system in the U.S. does appear to be a mess. Why are employers involved?

 

[JSSD]

It is a good thing that the availability of healthcare is not subject to the financial resources of individuals. But the system in the U.S. does appear to be a mess. Why are employers involved?

Is this a rhetorical complaint or do you really want to know?

If you are really wondering, this might be helpful for you:

Employment-based health benefit programs have existed in the United States for more than 100 years. In the 1870s, for example, railroad, mining, and other industries began to provide the services of company doctors to workers. In 1910, Montgomery Ward entered into one of the earliest group insurance contracts. Prior to World War II, few Americans had health insurance, and most policies covered only hospital room, board, and ancillary services. During World War II, the number of persons with employment-based health insurance coverage started to increase for several reasons. When wages were frozen by the National War Labor Board and a shortage of workers occurred, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and offering health insurance was one option. Health insurance was an attractive means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: Unions supported employment-based health insurance, and workers’ health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes, as were cash wages.
Under the current tax code, health insurance premiums paid by employers are deductible for employers as a business expense, and are excluded, without limit, from workers’ taxable income.

ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0302fact

Incidentally, the PPACA (“Obamacare”) has very much demonstrated that the “availability of healthcare” and the “availability of healthcare coverage” are two very different things. The latter is now easier to get but I can assure you it doesn’t necessarily translate 1:1 with the former.

 

[Brendan]

No, the Democrats could not have just expanded Medicare because there was such an uproar by the Republicans about “socialized medicine”…

They most certainly COULD have. They had control over both houses of Congress at the time.

Every GOP amendment was either not brought up for a vote, or defeated. So Obamacare is 100% Dem architected.

 

[sallybutler]

They most certainly COULD have. They had control over both houses of Congress at the time.

Every GOP amendment was either not brought up for a vote, or defeated. So Obamacare is 100% Dem architected.

My understanding is that about 160 of the 500 amendments that were included in the final bill were GOP introduced – including the one that forced staff members of the Congress to use the exchanges.

from americasfairhealthcare.org/blog/entry/fact-check-how-the-health-care-law-was-made/

According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included “161 Republican amendments,” including “several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care,” and reflected the efforts of “six bipartisan working groups” that “met a combined 72 times” in 2009 as well as “30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform” since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee’s September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman’s Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.

 

[Rau]

Is this a rhetorical complaint or do you really want to know?

If you are really wondering, this might be helpful for you:

ebri.org/publications/facts/index.cfm?fa=0302fact

Incidentally, the PPACA (“Obamacare”) has very much demonstrated that the “availability of healthcare” and the “availability of healthcare coverage” are two very different things. The latter is now easier to get but I can assure you it doesn’t necessarily translate 1:1 with the former.

Intersting history re employer involvement. But doesn’t sound like good public policy!