Budget Fight: Why Don't The Gop De-Fund Medicare / Social Security?

[Bliz]

 

 

3. Your out of pocket amount is just wrong. Premium costs don't apply to the $6,350 limit. So in the case of the Rhode Island plans, you're looking at $1,800 in premium committments plus the deductible before you get coverage.

 

 

 

I understand what you're saying now.  I was using "out of pocket max" not literally but in the traditional sense, like they use it now when describing plans, as not including premiums, co-pays, prescriptions.  But you're right that is an ambiguous term, and I'm sure it's going to cause some confusion for people who are getting insurance for the first time.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens.  I'm cautiously optimistic.  But you have certainly raised a good point.  If you have someone around the poverty line getting major assistance on their premiums, and that person ends up owing the full deductible, what happens next?  Are  companies limited in how they can seek to collect or what types of payment plans they have to offer?   Is the debt dischargable in bankruptcy?  For my purposes, I've had to learn about the small business aspects, so it's not something that I've gone looking for, but I don't remember a single article talking about that. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

According to this calculator on the Silver plan my premium is about $41 per month........ARRRRGHHHHH I'm so angry.....raaaarrrrrrr....wait....that's really low right?

BTW, Chip you may not watch Faux etc any more but you channel the GOP narrative like a pro.

[Wrong Direction]

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

According to this calculator on the Silver plan my premium is about $41 per month........ARRRRGHHHHH I'm so angry.....raaaarrrrrrr....wait....that's really low right?

BTW, Chip you may not watch Faux etc any more but you channel the GOP narrative like a pro.

 

I'm curious, what's your deductible?

[chipwhich]

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

According to this calculator on the Silver plan my premium is about $41 per month........ARRRRGHHHHH I'm so angry.....raaaarrrrrrr....wait....that's really low right?

BTW, Chip you may not watch Faux etc any more but you channel the GOP narrative like a pro.

 

Well at least you are communicating now, and not barking out political nonsense.

And if anything I post is a lie or untrue, please call me out on it.

 

So you are paying $41 a month for insurance, but you have no idea what that means other than your max out of pocket is $4500 other than your monthly premium (that $41 per month by the way is the post tax premium).

 

So now you have insurance at a post tax rate of $41 a month, question is what coverage do you have?

 

I could help you understand, if you want to stay out of politics and not listening, which is exactly what our government does.  You don't need to post GOP in every post, you are a better poster than that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well at least you are communicating now, and not barking out political nonsense.

And if anything I post is a lie or untrue, please call me out on it.

 

So you are paying $41 a month for insurance, but you have no idea what that means other than your max out of pocket is $4500 other than your monthly premium (that $41 per month by the way is the post tax premium).

 

So now you have insurance at a post tax rate of $41 a month, question is what coverage do you have?

 

I could help you understand, if you want to stay out of politics and not listening, which is exactly what our government does.  You don't need to post GOP in every post, you are a better poster than that.

 

You know what though, 99% of people don't know what their deductible is, what their max out of pocket is, or what their catastrophic recovery is.  

 

We should compare apples to apples, I agree.  But let's not pretend that we can do that with this example.

[Larry]

Thought occurs to me that I may be an unusual case for the exchanges.

I'm unemployed, but don't really think I should be subsidized. (Right now, I'm paying for insurance out of pocket).

I wonder if the exchange will demand that I take a subsidy. Or, worse yet, demand that I go Medicaid.

[twa]

Thought occurs to me that I may be an unusual case for the exchanges.

I'm unemployed, but don't really think I should be subsidized. (Right now, I'm paying for insurance out of pocket).

I wonder if the exchange will demand that I take a subsidy. Or, worse yet, demand that I go Medicaid.

do you plan on applying to the Marketplace?..if not then your only question is whether your plan is grandfathered.

 

I believe you have to request subsidies(they also have them for other medical expenses) to receive them.

 

Medicaid (unlike Medicare) is optional and must be applied for

[Wrong Direction]

Thought occurs to me that I may be an unusual case for the exchanges.

I'm unemployed, but don't really think I should be subsidized. (Right now, I'm paying for insurance out of pocket).

I wonder if the exchange will demand that I take a subsidy. Or, worse yet, demand that I go Medicaid.

 

I can't speak for ObamaCare, but in many other programs, they count income and assets when they means test. So, if you won a lottery and quit your job, you wouldn't be eligible.

[Gallen5862]

The House Republicans are debating three amendments to the senate CR. The amendments are to delay Obmacare one year and repeal the Medical devices tax. The other amendment is the Pay our Military act in case of a government shutdown.

[bearrock]

Congress seriously needs to make military pay a part of the permanently funded programs. That we are even facing the possibility of not paying our military members, at a time of war no less, is absolutely insane. I dont care what the doomsday scenarios of obamacare are, they would not justify not paying the men and women in service.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well at least you are communicating now, and not barking out political nonsense.

And if anything I post is a lie or untrue, please call me out on it.

 

So you are paying $41 a month for insurance, but you have no idea what that means other than your max out of pocket is $4500 other than your monthly premium (that $41 per month by the way is the post tax premium).

 

So now you have insurance at a post tax rate of $41 a month, question is what coverage do you have?

See now you've moved the goal posts again, before it was the dread of massive monthly premiums, so you tell me to check with the poor in my parish (not knowing that you're talking about my very situation) and ask them what they think, so then I took my exact situation and found out my premium and that was $41 per month, and now that you lost on that issue now you want to compare plans. So what is it; 1) the monster premiums or 2) policies that aren't luxury policies?

I could help you understand, if you want to stay out of politics and not listening, which is exactly what our government does.  You don't need to post GOP in every post, you are a better poster than that.

Oh I'm sure you'd help me understand, but since you haven't shown me that you understand I'll pass. And the reason I keep posting about the GOP is because every response you give to me sounds exactly like the GOP fear machine.

[dchogs]

Why are ACA funding and "the shutdown" even connected in this voting? Is it simply a question of being included in the budget or not?

[skinsmarydu]

Why are ACA funding and "the shutdown" even connected in this voting? Is it simply a question of being included in the budget or not?

Yes, and the GOP absolutely refuses to believe, either purposefully or out of sheer memory loss, that the ACA is LAW and has been upheld by their own Chief Justice Roberts.

[@DCGoldPants]

That's something I'm surprised is used anymore. I mean, that's red meat for the folks you already have. But if you're that voter you need in '14 or '16, don't they realize that attaching something like paying out military folks to something totally unrelated like ACA isn't really a good tactic to get the swing voter?

 

If that voter is smart enough to ask WHY didn't you vote for X, then they are smart enough to ask WHY did these guy attach Y & Z to that.

 

If/When there is a shutdown. It "us" who are going to be hurt the most. Followed by the GOPers who were still getting paid throughout this thing. Then the Dems and Who are getting blame by the same folks who blame Obama for the Katrina response. ACA is law. The guy ran basically twice on it. Won....and the Courts upheld it.

 

The Senate is going to strip all that nonsense again, send back something that is solely about avoiding the shutdown and paying out bills. 

 

Stupid Obama should be using the Bully Pulpit to make it sound as simple as possible. "We want a bill that just X. That's it.

 

A few quotes from Parkers Op-Ed. Click the link for more.

 

 

The GOP’s lose-lose proposition

"Ask most people on Capitol Hill and they’ll say: 50-50. Those are the odds they give for a government shutdown.

An alternative to the shutdown would be a proposed delay of the individual mandate, the most painful part of Obamacare, which may seem like a Republican victory but on closer inspection would be a win for President Obama and Democrats."

 

 

"And if the debt ceiling isn’t raised and the United States defaults, threatening our full faith and credit around the world and sending countries looking favorably for other currencies, not to mention the financial fallout here, then blame will fall at the feet of the Republican Party. No surprise there."

 

"What, really, does Obama have to lose? Only face, the pain of which passes. What he would gain is the legacy that escapes so many these days — proof that he is a leader who does the right thing, even if it hurts his pride just a little."

[bearrock]

One irony in all this is that ACA is for the most part permanently funded like social security etc so not passing a CR would not defund the ACA. When the swath of governmentshuts down on oct 1st, ACA will actually continue. The reasonable members of the GOP, who i still hope are the majority, need to take the nutjobs out back tell them to sit down and shut up.

[chipwhich]

See now you've moved the goal posts again, before it was the dread of massive monthly premiums, so you tell me to check with the poor in my parish (not knowing that you're talking about my very situation) and ask them what they think, so then I took my exact situation and found out my premium and that was $41 per month, and now that you lost on that issue now you want to compare plans. So what is it; 1) the monster premiums or 2) policies that aren't luxury policies?

 

I said the cost of health insurance including premiums and out of pocket expenses.  You read what you wanted to read because you can only think like our politicians which is why our government is a mess.

 

Let me know in a year how your experience goes (assuming you have to use the insurance) and let me know how things look upon renewal.

 

Now go get your checkbook and write the first premium check.  Let me know how much the check you write is.

Thanks.

 

[Larry]

Yes, and the GOP absolutely refuses to believe, either purposefully or out of sheer memory loss, that the ACA is LAW and has been upheld by their own Chief Justice Roberts.

 

Yes, it's law.  But that doesn't mean that it HAS to be funded. 

 

Social Security is law, too.  Doesn't mean Congress can't eliminate it, tomorrow.  (That's part of their job, you know.  Changing laws.) 

[Larry]

One irony in all this is that ACA is for the most part permanently funded like social security etc so not passing a CR would not defund the ACA. When the swath of governmentshuts down on oct 1st, ACA will actually continue. The reasonable members of the GOP, who i still hope are the majority, need to take the nutjobs out back tell them to sit down and shut up.

 

Are you at all certain of that? 

 

i wondered if they did things the way SS and other entitlements are done, where the law simply says that the government will spend whatever it takes, for every person who meets criteria X, no budgeting required.  Or if they did it more like a federal department, like the FBI, which needs a budget (or a CR), or else it cannot do a thing. 

 

Can you provide some support? 

I said the cost of health insurance including premiums and out of pocket expenses.

And you did it comparing apples and oranges.

I know this may be a shock to you, but out of pocket expenses are lower, if you have insurance.

(That's why people pay for insurance.)

 

But feel free to keep loudly announcing that "Well, a person under Obamacare, who has cardiac surgery, might pay up to $6,000.  But a person without Obamacare, who has no insurance and no medical bills, doesn't spend any money"

 

I promise.  If you just stick to it with even more fanaticism than you're already demonstrating, it'll work.  Really. 

[bearrock]

Are you at all certain of that? 

 

i wondered if they did things the way SS and other entitlements are done, where the law simply says that the government will spend whatever it takes, for every person who meets criteria X, no budgeting required.  Or if they did it more like a federal department, like the FBI, which needs a budget (or a CR), or else it cannot do a thing. 

 

Can you provide some support? 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/23/obamacare-starts-next-week-whether-the-government-shuts-down-or-not/

 

This is where I'm getting that from (there have been some mention from other WAPO articles, but I think they all source back to this article and the underlying CRS report.  To be fair, I might be wrong about ACA not needing additional funding and continuing during the shutdown, but the article seems pretty well supported and I haven't heard or read anything to the contrary.  I think ACA needs an affirmative step by Congress to defund rather than need an affirmative step to fund in normal course of budget approvals and CRs. 

 

To those who exceeded the monthly 20 article quota, a short excerpt

-----------------------

"It appears that substantial ACA implementation might continue during a lapse in annual appropriations that resulted in a temporary government shutdown," CRS analysts wrote in that report.

 

This largely has to do with how the big pieces of Obamacare are funded. The law uses mandatory funds for its really big programs. That includes the new online marketplaces, known as exchanges, where uninsured people will be able to shop for coverage. The Medicaid expansion is funded with mandatory funding, as are the billions in federal tax credits to help with purchasing coverage.

Those mandatory funds were appropriated in the Affordable Care Act and, without repealing Obamacare, legislators cannot touch them. Even in the face of a government shutdown, this is the spending that sticks around.

So, Obamacare is largely insulated from yearly budget negotiations. Or, if you want to put it in CRS-speak, the agency believes that Health and Human Services could rely on "sources of funding other than annual discretionary appropriations to support implementation activities, including multiple-year and non-year discretionary funds still available for obligation as well as mandatory funds."

Putting the mandatory funding aside for a moment, the Congressional Research Service also points out that Health and Human Services isn't really counting on additional funding from Congress. The agency has requested – and Congress has repeatedly denied – additional money to set up the health-care law. Without that, it's identified other funding sources that it can use to make implementation works.

-------------------------------

[bearrock]

Yes, it's law.  But that doesn't mean that it HAS to be funded. 

 

Social Security is law, too.  Doesn't mean Congress can't eliminate it, tomorrow.  (That's part of their job, you know.  Changing laws.) 

 

But they aren't saying that let's eliminate the program (well, they are saying that, but the 40 some odd attempts at repeal has failed, so apparently they've moved on to other tactics).  They aren't even saying that let's not fund the ACA this year (because most of the funding for the ACA is either permanent or not from yearly budget).  They are saying unless you stop the funding for the ACA, which we can't repeal due to lack of votes, we won't fund any of the other government programs reliant on CRs.  

 

We can't repeal, we can't straight forward defund, so we'll hold the budget or debt ceiling hostage (oh dear lord) unless you give us the votes to pass what we can't on our own. 

 

This really should not be how the legislative process works.  What's next?  Impeach Obama or we won't agree to raise the debt ceiling?

[skinsmarydu]

I think (and who am I, right? lol) that you're right, bearrock...it's not discretionary spending like a teapot museum somewhere. 

It's not pork.  It's law.  There's a difference.

[chipwhich]

I know this may be a shock to you, but out of pocket expenses are lower, if you have insurance.

(That's why people pay for insurance.)

 

But feel free to keep loudly announcing that "Well, a person under Obamacare, who has cardiac surgery, might pay up to $6,000.  But a person without Obamacare, who has no insurance and no medical bills, doesn't spend any money"

 

I promise.  If you just stick to it with even more fanaticism than you're already demonstrating, it'll work.  Really. 

 

Larry, you are wrong, but keep shouting from the rooftops so everyone can hear.

 

If I don't go to the doctor, I don't spend a nickel.

Now I don't know how many cardiac surgery's you have had in your lifetime.  I haven't had any.

 

My cousin in Tennessee who is now in her 40's lives without health insurance, she pays as she goes.

 

For catastrophe insurance, Obamacare is great.  For yearly maintenance for the average american family it's going to cost a lot out of pocket.

But hey, you now have catastrophic insurance.  Happy?  That is if you can afford it, if not you pay a penalty and do it the same way as before obamacare.

Now were this a single payer system, I could back it, but it's not.  It doesn't even fix ANY problems as everyone can just opt out and pay a fine.

 

All hail universal errrr partial universal errr maybe everyone gets coverage healthcare.

[twa]

But they aren't saying that let's eliminate the program (well, they are saying that, but the 40 some odd attempts at repeal has failed, so apparently they've moved on to other tactics).  They aren't even saying that let's not fund the ACA this year (because most of the funding for the ACA is either permanent or not from yearly budget).  They are saying unless you stop the funding for the ACA, which we can't repeal due to lack of votes, we won't fund any of the other government programs reliant on CRs.  

 

We can't repeal, we can't straight forward defund, so we'll hold the budget or debt ceiling hostage (oh dear lord) unless you give us the votes to pass what we can't on our own. 

 

This really should not be how the legislative process works.  What's next?  Impeach Obama or we won't agree to raise the debt ceiling?

It is really just a protest vote and the administration would rather see a shutdown than allow it to pass.

kinda late to be complaining how the legislative process works after all the tricks and bribery used to pass ACA

would you prefer the congresscritters were subject to administrative decrees?....the Founders had a different plan

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.”

―Samuel Adams

 

[Larry]

If I don't go to the doctor, I don't spend a nickel.

And under Obamacare, your medical expenses will be exactly the same, plus the premium.

Not "the maximum out of pocket expense". The premium.

 

My cousin in Tennessee who is now in her 40's lives without health insurance, she pays as she goes.

 

And under Obamacare, her spending will change at most by the amount of the premium. 

 

Not the "maximum out of pocket expense".  The premium. 

 

For yearly maintenance for the average american family it's going to cost a lot out of pocket.

 

 

Construct me a "average american family" whose expenses will change by more than the amount of the premium. 

 

Pick any hypothetical cherry picked expenses you like. 

 

Now were this a single payer system, I could back it, but it's not.  It doesn't even fix ANY problems as everyone can just opt out and pay a fine.

 

 Well, now, I may have misjudged you. 

 

I was under the impression that you were trying to advocare for the repeal of Obamacare, and doing so by trying to terrify people with what they hypothetical maximum health care cost might be.  (And conveniently ignoring what their maximum health care cost might be, without it.)  As though Obama is suddenly going to be hitting everybody with a $6000 bill that they wouldn't have had, before. 

 

Now, if your problem with Obamacare is that it has deductibles, and you think it shouldn't, and it has premiums, and you think it should be free, and that it doesn't force people to buy insurance, then I've been totally misreading you. 

[Larry]

It is really just a protest vote and the administration would rather see a shutdown than allow it to pass.

Ah, got it. The 75th non-negotiable demand to kill Obamacare is "just a protest vote". But failing to pass it is "the other guys want to shutdown the government".

Not really believable. But very predictable.