chipwhich Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 about 33% and even higher among minorities.....pretty sure this policy is more racist and punitive than the voter id Where is the outrage from the left.... Even my work group plan I don't discriminate, although I think I heard I could now because of Obamacare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/27/latest-obamacare-delay-obama-administration-puts-w/ Another Obamacare delay: White House delays enrollment for small businesses The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a major delay to the new health care law, this time putting off by one year the online mechanism that lets small businesses shop for plans through the federal Obamacare marketplace. Its decision to delay Web enrollment through the Small Business Health Options Program, or SHOP, until November 2014 is yet another tweak to the Affordable Care Act’s tumultuous timeline. “The president bit off more than he can chew with this health care law, and small businesses are now forced to bear the consequences,” House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said. The delay is rooted in the rampant Web glitches facing the federal portal, HealthCare.gov, which spoiled the October debut of the health exchanges and forced the administration to launch a 24-7 repair campaign. On Wednesday the Department of Health and Human Services said the agency immediately is opening up direct enrollment in the SHOP program through agents, brokers and insurers in states that let the federal government run their exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obamacare-rollout-leaves-states-shocked-medicaid/ Obamacare rollout leaves states shocked at Medicaid signups: ‘What planet’ is this? In just the first month of Obamacare’s rollout, states are reporting a massive surge in the number of people signing up for Medicaid expansions versus the slow trickle of a few selecting the private insurer route — and health experts are shocked: What is going on? “When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, head of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, in The Washington Post. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?” In some jurisdictions, fully nine of 10 health care enrollees opt for Medicaid, the numbers reveal. And that’s sure to drive up Obamacare costs — which have already surged past projections — because supporters of the reform act didn’t anticipate that more would choose to enroll in an expensive entitlement program than in a privately-run insurance plan, The Washington Post reported. Rather, expectations were for a fairer balance, with half of enrollees choosing the Medicaid expansion and the other half, private companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Still rockin those $50 Advils bro. Thanks Obama! And thank you Chipwich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obamacare-rollout-leaves-states-shocked-medicaid/ Obamacare rollout leaves states shocked at Medicaid signups: ‘What planet’ is this? Uh, at least as I understand it, people don;t have a choice as to whether to go with the exchanges, or with Medicaid. Well, actually, I think the choice is "You can go to the exchange, and pay full price, because the rule is, if you're poor enough for the Medicaid expansion, then you aren't eligible for any subsidies on the exchanges. (If you make more than the cutoff for Medicaid expansion, THEN you can get subsidies on the exchanges.)" (And, as I understand it, that was before Obama waved a magic wand, and announced that in some jurisdictions, where the state has chosen not to allow the Medicaid expansion, then Obama has allowed at least one of those states to take the money that was budgeted for Medicaid expansion, and spend the money, instead, on giving subsidies to people who weren't supposed to be eligible.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Wait a week and the rules will change yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 Still rockin those $50 Advils bro. Thanks Obama! And thank you Chipwich! Get your checkbook ready, the party is starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KuNiT21 Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 This has to be the most embarrassing law ever put into existence. When is someone competent finally going to step in and do something about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 This has to be the most embarrassing law ever put into existence. When is someone competent finally going to step in and do something about it? There is nothing anyone can do. The train has left the station and an election is on the horizon. Chugga Chugga Chugga Chugga Whoo Whoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted November 30, 2013 Share Posted November 30, 2013 (edited) There is nothing anyone can do. The train has left the station and an election is on the horizon. Chugga Chugga Chugga Chugga Whoo Whoo Your post made me think of this........gotta love watching Disney 24/7 in a house with a five year old http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv5ZgXtohI Edited November 30, 2013 by Dont Taze Me Bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/key-congressional-leaders-reach-accord-on-overhauling-medicare-doctor-pay/2013/11/27/4f6837b0-5792-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html Key congressional leaders in accord on overhauling Medicare doctor pay Key congressional leaders have reached a bipartisan framework for how Medicare should pay doctors and released a proposal that would erase billions in annual spending on physician services that are considered overpriced. The proposal calls for Medicare to reduce payments on physician services that have been overvalued and sets a target that would achieve an estimated $3 billion in annual savings. Those savings would be redistributed to boost pay for other undervalued physician services. Experts and some doctors have complained that the system that Medicare uses to set doctor pay has favored some specialists and short-changed general practitioners and others. It is also blamed for generally pushing up prices. The reform provisions are attached to a broader bill that revises the formula for how much Medicare will spend every year on physician fees. The existing formula calls for deep cuts every year; these are overridden annually by Congress but the new bill offers a permanent solution and would repeal that formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 You mean, congress actually might do something? And, something desirable? And that might make things better? AND which actually brings reality into future budgeting, instead of creating a fictional future world? I'm having a LOT of trouble believing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 They also said ACA would make things better and cheaper , good intentions might be better replaced with good sense. is a bill necessary to prevent overpaying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 They also said ACA would make things better and cheaper , good intentions might be better replaced with good sense. is a bill necessary to prevent overpaying? Considering medicare is a government program.... YES, it is necessary to pass a bill to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 Considering medicare is a government program.... YES, it is necessary to pass a bill to change it. Payments are set by Congress ?.....no wonder it is screwed up(unless ya compare it to the ACA rollout) ACA+healthcare. gov is really raising my blood pressure.....and my rates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 There is potential good news( unless the writer is smoking crack) smoking could result in a exemption to the ins mandate......or of course bankrupt ya with premiums http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-522519-hie-plan.html The mandatory tobacco premium surcharges are not eligible for ACA tax credit subsidies. If both the Smith and Jones families earned $33,000 annually (138 percent of the federal poverty level) they won't qualify for Medicaid in any state. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation Health Plan Subsidy Calculator, if both families purchased HIE coverage rather than pay the health plan mandate penalty of $825 (after 2015, the penalty is a maximum of $695 or 2.5 percent of family income), the Smiths would have to pay 34 percent of their family income to get a Silver Level (middle option) health plan while the Joneses would only pay 3 percent of family income to get the same coverage though the HIE. The subsidy calculator also shows some of the perverse subsidy notch effects (e.g., earning a dollar more than $94,200 will cost either family $11,266 in lost subsidies). If the Smiths and Joneses live in those states without expanded Medicaid and earn $23,000 or less (below the federal poverty level), they will be ineligible for any HIE tax credit subsidies. The Smiths would now be mandated to spend 132 percent of family income for an HIE health plan and the Joneses would spend 88 percent of income or both families would pay a $695 penalty for refusing mandatory health plan coverage. But there's a loophole. The ACA exempts any family from the coverage mandate if more than eight percent of family income is needed to pay for the Bronze Level (basic option) health plan available in the HIE. This means that while the non-smoking Joneses are only exempted from the mandate at incomes below $23,000, the smoking Smiths are exempt from the health insurance mandate at all household incomes up to $314,000. Less than two percent of American families earn more than this amount annually. This gives a huge proportion of HIE-eligible families an opportunity to opt out of health care coverage by claiming to be smokers to avoid mandate penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 So you can just claim you smoke even if you don't and get an exemption, penalty free. Or you can smoke like a chimney and get exemption and have the government take care of ya. I love this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 So you can just claim you smoke even if you don't and get an exemption, penalty free. Or you can smoke like a chimney and get exemption and have the government take care of ya. I love this country. ya musta missed this part... If the Smiths contest their $10,000 smoking premium surcharge and the IRS audits them for tobacco use, it will need to accurately weed out true smokers from those who are merely exposed to second-hand smoke. At that point the ever-popular IRS audit may have to include taking samples of hair, urine or blood. no wonder they are arming the IRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 no wonder they are arming the IRS It gets better and better. What you going to do Skinsmarydu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) Sorry, I may have missed a post or nine...was just going on what I read. If you answer the questions I ask, I don't feel the need to respond, as it tires the mods...I think we've lost Jumbo, or maybe the season did. Anyhoo...I know you don't want to politically joust when it's not being said your way. But it really was a Heritage Foundation idea. Governor Mitt Romney successfully executed said idea. What I think is wrong is that it's not YOUR DUDE doing it. If it were President Romney, there wouldn't be any cryin'. Wouldn't be any from me, promise you that. If Massachusetts was country-wide, I'd be all for it. *kinda like I already am*... Let's see how it works. Still only have BS write-ups. Nothing works yet. Bumbled, yes. That the ACA was a Heritage foundation idea is a myth. A mandate was their idea but what was mandated is where the ACA differs significantly (and significantly is an major understatement) from what Heritage proposed. Heritage wanted to mandate only catastrophic coverage. Edited December 2, 2013 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Heritage wanted mandate only catastrophic coverage. Well Obama mandated a catastrophe...close doesn't count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 That the ACA was a Heritage foundation idea is a myth. A mandate was their idea but what was mandated is where the ACA differs significantly (and significantly is an major understatement) from what Heritage proposed. Heritage wanted to mandate only catastrophic coverage. And many people have claimed, in this thread, that that's all the lower priced plans on the exchanges ARE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 Payments are set by Congress ?.....no wonder it is screwed up(unless ya compare it to the ACA rollout) ACA+healthcare. gov is really raising my blood pressure.....and my rates Yes, they are. By congress and by HHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted December 2, 2013 Author Share Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) I can't blame doctors. They have school loans to pay off. They have a standard of lifestyle they've been told they should live up to by going into this profession. Yes blaming the doctors for high healthcare costs and out of control spending is like blaming teachers, social security recipients, and union workers for the 2008 financial crisisis and a lethargic economy ever since. It's scape goating folks who's voice can't compete with the companies which are trying to shift the blame..... The problem with the US healthcare system. The reason why we pay almost twice as much as the next most expensive system is entirely at the feet of the big three cartels which dominate our healthcare system. Insurance Companies, drug companies, and hospital companies ( service providers )... They exist in worlds where competition and the free market doesn't effect their bottom line and they complain about any legislation wich tries to make them accountable to consumers. Edited December 2, 2013 by JMS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted December 2, 2013 Share Posted December 2, 2013 And many people have claimed, in this thread, that that's all the lower priced plans on the exchanges ARE. They're not of course there are all kinds of added mandatory procedures to even the Bronze plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now