Obamacare & Government Shutdowns

nagilum2

joseph brand wrote: »

Tell me if I'm wrong.

There are a few GOP/ Tea Party supporters here, complaining about the rise in costs with this unholy Obamacare. Fair enough.

But when asked to log onto the site and get a quote, they have come up with a myriad of excuses. I'm expecting someone to say; "my dog ate the router/ laptop" at this stage. It looks very disingenuous, dodging questions like that.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here:

We've gone over most of these before, but for your edification:

1. Why do you assume one must be a GOP/Tea Party supporter to dislike this law? Maybe you're just a business owner not excited about seeing your costs skyrocket.

2. If the site is unavailable (and it has been - been checking again all morning in addition to many times yesterday), you can't get the data you refer to.

3. Even if the site wasn't down, the renewal policies were structured to require commitment prior to ability to compare prices on the exchanges anyway.

4. There's no information yet whether exchange policies will provide the same level of coverage as existing plans, because we can't see the plans, because the site is down. Poor planning, poor execution.

They could have passed a bill permitting the re-importation of prescription drugs and revoking the health insurance companies antitrust exemptions and it would have been far better than this legislation written by crony corporation lobbyists.

Amerika

jman0war wrote: »

Completely and utterly irrelavant to discussion.

Republicans sabotaging the functioning of the US government because they don't like the Affordable Healthcare Act has got absolutely nothing to do with Obama's Consitutional right as US President to sign bills into law.

I wasn't talking about his "Consitutional right as US President to sign bills into law," but rather his ignoring of the laws. And is it considered "sabotaging" whenever the House or Senate makes proposals to the Budget for any reason (and votes accordingly)... or just in this case?

clairefontaine

Democracy?

Kleptocracy.

InTheTrees

nagilum2 wrote: »

1. Why do you assume one must be a GOP/Tea Party supporter to dislike this law? Maybe you're just a business owner not excited about seeing your costs skyrocket.

Because you're being vague. Which is a hallmark of the the right wing tpartiers.

You said earlier that your current policy was for yourself, your wife and two kids. I dont see where the "Small business" comes in? You're a self employed individual applying for a family plan right? Unless you're also applying for employees also?

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I wasn't talking about his "Consitutional right as US President to sign bills into law," but rather his ignoring of the laws. And is it considered "sabotaging" whenever the House or Senate makes proposals to the Budget for any reason (and votes accordingly)... or just in this case?

I realize non-americans are probably more versed in american government procedures but really did they never teach you in school "how a bill becomes law"?

You're equating shutting down the government by refusing to pass a budget to making changes to a bill by debate beforehand?

Seriously? Its not even worth explaining because you surely know better.

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because you're being vague. Which is a hallmark of the the right wing tpartiers.

You said earlier that your current policy was for yourself, your wife and two kids. I dont see where the "Small business" comes in? You're a self employed individual applying for a family plan right? Unless you're also applying for employees also?

Nagilum2 wrote:

I am a small business owner (partner of a very small software consultancy) in the US. As part of this, I have had an insurance policy for myself, wife, and two daughters for the past year at a cost of approximately $850/mo (including medical and dental).

vague - uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.

Maybe try reading a little slower next time before throwing out generalizations, eh?

PS - Resorting to accusations that one belongs to some not well liked group of individuals rather than argue on the merits is the hallmark a person who doesn't understand the issue very well.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Huh? This president has quite a history of ignoring laws that he finds inconvenient including immigration enforcement, drug enforcement, DOMA, and even his own healthcare law… like the delay of the employer mandate and the part of the law that explicitly bars individuals in federally-run healthcare exchanges from receiving a particular tax benefit. Or is it simply okay just when Obama does it? And when we again get a Rebublican president, will it be okay for him/her to ignore laws also... or will that be different?

A. He's not 'ignoring' those laws even in the most cosmetic sense.
B. Drug enforcement is still occurring
C. His DOJ decided not to defend DOMA in court, but up until the time it was overturned it was enforced.

Why lie when you don't have to?

InTheTrees

nagilum2 wrote: »

vague - uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.

Maybe try reading a little slower next time before throwing out generalizations, eh?

PS - Resorting to accusations that one belongs to some not well liked group of individuals rather than argue on the merits is the hallmark a person who doesn't understand the issue very well.

An unliked group? Families?

Yes... unclear... your talking about the needs of small business but you're in the market for a family plan right? Mom, pop and two kids and you currently pay $850 a month.

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

An unliked group? Families?

Yes... unclear... your talking about the needs of small business but you're in the market for a family plan right? Mom, pop and two kids and you currently pay $850 a month.

multiple choice question - which group do you think you are trying to lump opponents of Obamacare into here:

Because you're being vague. Which is a hallmark of the the right wing tpartiers.

A. Families
B. Gorillas
C. right wing tpartiers

InTheTrees

nagilum2 wrote: »

C. right wing tpartiers

Yes. Using misinformation and distortion to try and change peoples minds necessairily involves a certain amount of vagueness because of the nonsense nature of the message, and that has become a trade mark of the tpartiers in particular (have you listened to bachman?) so when one comes across it here its pretty natural to assume some affinity exists. I think you can appreciate that.

I'm open to being wrong. But you never answered the question. You said your rates are going to spike by some exhorbitant percentage but then fell silent on what rate you would have to pay under aca. So its all a bit vague really.

And doesn't seem like a reason to cripple the government.

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes. Using misinformation and distortion to try and change peoples minds necessairily involves a certain amount of vagueness because of the nonsense nature of the message, and that has become a trade mark of the tpartiers in particular (have you listened to bachman?) so when one comes across it here its pretty natural to assume some affinity exists. I think you can appreciate that.

I'm open to being wrong. But you never answered the question. You said your rates are going to spike by some exhorbitant percentage but then fell silent on what rate you would have to pay under aca. So its all a bit vague really.

And doesn't seem like a reason to cripple the government.

1. Yes, because my rates DID go up by an exorbitant percentage. I have empirical evidence.

2. I cannot get any quotes because the says it cannot verify my identity so I still can't tell you what my rates would be.

3. For the record, I voted for the green party last election. Normally I lean libertarian, but last election they recycled an ex-republican, so I wasn't going to vote for him.

4. I'm surprised that you're so set in your hatred of and blame for the tea party that you would assume that a small business owner (thanks for finally reading that on try 4 or whatever) cares more about politics than having to buy a much more expensive healthcare plan. FWIW I think pretty much all politicians in the US are the worst kind of pieces of human excrement, and I really don't care anything about any of them. The system is as corrupt and rotten to the core as it gets right now, and both sides are just as bad as each other.

5. The details on my current plan - in Virginia (the one that just went up about 30%) are as follows: I have no deductibles on most in-network services, and a 10% deductible up to $1500 for out of network stuff. I have a $20 co-pay on most dr visits and generic prescriptions have no copay. Note - the rate I quoted includes full family dental coverage. Excluding that, it's approx 700/mo for the family.

nagilum2

Interesting analysis: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, and quadruple for men.

40-year-olds will face rate increases as high as 305 percent

40-year-olds, surprisingly, will face a similar picture. The cheapest exchange plan for the average enrollee, compared to what a 40-year-old would pay today, will cost an average of 99 percent more for men, and 62 percent for women.

For this cohort, men fared worst in North Carolina, with rate increases of 305 percent. Women got hammered in Nebraska, where rates will increase by a national high of 237 percent. Again, Colorado and New Hampshire fared best, with 17 percent and 5-8 percent declines, respectively.

For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.

The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.

I will keep trying to use the broken system to get a quote but based on the preponderance of the available information, I have no confidence that I'm going to find anything close to what I'm getting at the price point I'm paying.

nagilum2

More from the same article:

Kathy Kristof of CBS MoneyWatch relates her own experience of seeing a 67 percent spike in her premiums, for a worse policy than she had before:

The promise that you could keep your old policy, if you liked it, has proved illusory. My insurer, Kaiser Permanente, informed me in a glossy booklet that “At midnight on December 31, we will discontinue your current plan because it will not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.” My premium, the letter added, would go from $209 a month to $348, a 66.5 percent increase that will cost $1,668 annually.

What made my plan too substandard to survive under Obamacare? It did not provide maternity benefits. I’m 53 years old. I figure pregnancy would require an act of God. (Incidentally, maternity benefits will be covered on men’s policies too. Let’s hope medical science comes a long way so you guys can use those benefits.) My policy also did not cover substance abuse treatments or psychiatric care…

Meanwhile, the things that mattered to me — that I would be able to limit my out-of-pocket costs if I had a catastrophic ailment — got worse under my new Obamacare policy. My policy, which has always paid 100 percent of the cost of annual check-ups, had a $5,000 annual deductible for sick visits and hospital stays. Once I paid that $5,000, the plan would pay 100 percent of any additional cost. That protected me from economic devastation in the event of a catastrophic illness, such as cancer.

Kaiser’s Obamacare policy has a $4,500 deductible, but then covers only 40 percent of medical costs for office visits, hospital stays and drugs. Out-of-pocket expenses aren’t capped until the policyholder pays $6,350 annually.

Sure, that’s only another $1,350. But it adds to the additional $1,663 that I’m paying in premiums, making my personal cost for Obama care add to $3,018 annually. This, by the way, is the bare-bones policy under Obamacare — the Bronze plan. Premiums for plans that offer lower deductibles and premiums would cost almost twice as much, according to the Kaiser booklet.

clairefontaine

What happened to the America I know? the one where Americans want to go to work, save some money and keep government out of their lives as much as possible?

I want a reversal of government.

nagilum2

clairefontaine wrote: »

What happened to the America I know? the one where Americans want to go to work, save some money and keep government out of their lives as much as possible?

I want a reversal of government.

That America has gone into the dustbin of history forever IMO. It's too hard for politicians to take care of their crony political donor special interest groups and corporations without a powerful centralized government.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Just a friendly reminder to all posters in US Politics that we are a discussion forum, and not a cut-and-paste or news dump forum. The content you author can be important. Sure, we can quote a bit from other sources to support our points, but the majority of text should made by our community of boards.ie posters, and not by copying what some journalist or blogger may have said.

CS Hasuki

IMO Republicans should let it through. It will destroy the democrats next election. Not that I would have much good to say about the reps. Only difference between Dems/Reps is rhetoric.

InTheTrees

CS Hasuki wrote: »

IMO Republicans should let it through. It will destroy the democrats next election. Not that I would have much good to say about the reps. Only difference between Dems/Reps is rhetoric.

Huh??

Why will it destroy democrats in the elections?

The reason Republicans have resorted to such desperate measures is because the fractured party has been unable to motivate the public against it.

CS Hasuki

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh??

Why will it destroy democrats in the elections?

The reason Republicans have resorted to such desperate measures is because the fractured party has been unable to motivate the public against it.

Couple of points.
The "shut down" is just circus.
Obama care has already had a huge effect on jobs, majority of jobs being added to US economy over the last 6-12 months have been part time.

Premiums are going through the roof for many people. Gov threatening people monies will be taken from bank accounts for people who opt out. They originally denied this would be the case.

This bill is for big business, not for the American people. Was it originally supposed to genuinely help people or always just a special interest project? God only knows.

Anyway the US titanic has already hit the iceberg, it's financially & morally bankrupt.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh??

Why will it destroy democrats in the elections?

The reason Republicans have resorted to such desperate measures is because the fractured party has been unable to motivate the public against it.

Because it will destroy the economy and many people's lives. Alo of republicans think its a good idea not to fight Obamacare because it will guarantee a democrat will never win another election.

joseph brand

clairefontaine wrote: »

Because it will destroy the economy and many people's lives. Alo of republicans think its a good idea not to fight Obamacare because it will guarantee a democrat will never win another election.

What? Care to expand?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

joseph brand

The myth about job-killing Obamacare.

Republicans have blown the law’s potential problems so far out of proportion that their attacks sound like a “Saturday Night Live” parody.

“Americans all over this country are suffering because of Obamacare,”Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said last month. “It is the single biggest job killer in America.”

That is because only 3 percent of small businesses — those with fewer than 500 employees — have more than 50 workers, so 97 percent of small employers are exempt from the law’s mandates. Meanwhile, virtually all large companies already offer health insurance to their employees. Aside from things such as reporting requirements, Obamacare’s mandates will directly obligate only about 1 percent of American businesses to do anything different.

People won’t be as locked into their jobs, since they won’t have to stick with certain employers to ensure they have health-care coverage. That will make it easier for people to move into jobs they’re better at, and it could promote entrepreneurship. With more reliable care, workers might better manage the symptoms of one-time or chronic illnesses, which could cut down on the number of sick days they take. And the health-care industry probably will hire more people.

Has anyone wondered why health insurance is offered to employees? What about car insurance? Life assurance? Mobile phone insurance?

It all came about during the WWII Government Wage Freeze. Companies would offer other benefits to entice employees since they couldn't offer raises etc. Healthcare was simply another perk, like a company car.

A very important point, rarely made, except from posters on other forums, is the idea of being locked into a miserable job, for fear of losing the perk of health insurance.

InTheTrees

CS Hasuki wrote: »

Couple of points.
The "shut down" is just circus.
Obama care has already had a huge effect on jobs, majority of jobs being added to US economy over the last 6-12 months have been part time.

Premiums are going through the roof for many people. Gov threatening people monies will be taken from bank accounts for people who opt out. They originally denied this would be the case.

This bill is for big business, not for the American people. Was it originally supposed to genuinely help people or always just a special interest project? God only knows.

Anyway the US titanic has already hit the iceberg, it's financially & morally bankrupt.

?

I'm sorry. Whereabouts in the us are you?

You don't seem to have a full grasp of what's going on.

What enormous effect on jobs?

If you had any experience of current premiums you'd already know how theyve been going through the roof for years. Hence the need for reform.

So I'm confused. You're just trying to sound like you have a clue to push the moral bankruptcy thing right?

InTheTrees

joseph brand wrote: »

A very important point, rarely made, except from posters on other forums, is the idea of being locked into a miserable job, for fear of losing the perk of health insurance.

Absolutely. And probably a reason the right wingers are opposing it so hard.

Workers tied to a job for health reasons suits them fine.

20Cent

Normally I'd quite enjoy watching the republicans tear themselves apart but its a pity they are dragging the whole country into this spat because of the tea party faction. Normal republicans are afraid of standing up to the madness because they are afraid of losing the Koch brothers funding.

Obamacare has taken off like a rocket in popularity millions of people having access to health insurance for the first time and as commented above much more job mobility. Once they have that they will never want to lose it. Its not Obamacare that they are afraid of its the success of Obamacare (they sure are going to regret calling it that!).

The ignorance and misinformation spread by the republicans has all shown to be lies. Bet there are a lot of republicans signing up right now, wondering what the big fuss was about.

Hopefully they will be punished and lose the house of representatives in 2014 giving Obama two clear years to implement real reform.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

A new poll gathered over the last few days (not last July) shows the damage the republicans are doing to themselves:

GOP In Grave Danger Of Losing House In 2014, PPP Polls Show

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/06/gop-house-2014-polls_n_4050686.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_hp_ref=politics

"For Democrats to win a House majority, 17 seats would need to switch to their party's favor. Results show that would be within reach, as Republican incumbents are behind in 17 of the districts analyzed: CA-31, CO-06, FL-02, FL-10, FL-13, IA-03, IA-04, IL-13, KY-06, MI-01, MI-07, MI-11, NY-19, OH-14, PA-07, PA-08, WI-07. In four districts, the incumbent Republican fell behind after respondents were told their representative supported the government shutdown: CA-10, NY-11, NY-23, VA-02. Three districts saw GOP incumbents maintain their hold over their Democratic challengers, even after hearing their elected officials' views on the shutdown, including CA-21, NV-03 and OH-06. "

http://front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/PPP_House_Survey.pdf

clairefontaine

I think paying the fine has become a more popular option to singing up for this.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The low enrollments are due to the system crashing because of the huge demand. 8.6 million hits in 24 hours!! Pretty high.
The insurance plans start in three months time so who is going to sign up straight away, anyway its a complicated thing hardly going to enroll in the first week going to weigh up the various options.

Statistics not released probably because its the fist week and will take time to collate. Not a conspiracy.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, Democrats lost seats to Republicans in 2010, but what explains the net loss of Republican seats during 2012, as well as Obama beating Romney? The election scene is bit more complex than what side is taken regarding ObamaCare.

Pointing figures at Democrats, or Republicans (or the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party), has been an exercise in futility for the American political process. It accomplishes nothing but derision. Historically, both Congressional Democrats and Republicans have taken the irresponsible position of the "Party of No" when one party controlled Houses. They are both to blame, and the polls about the unpopularity of Congress have generally been below that of the person occupying the Oval Office, regardless of their party affiliation.

In like manner, both RomneyCare and ObamaCare are seriously flawed, forcing the citizen to sign-up, or suffer financial penalties by the respective state or federal governments. Young adults already pay payroll taxes for social programs (e.g., Social Security, etc.) that have been poorly managed by both parties, wasted by Congress, and will be defunct by the time they retire decades from now. It's a lose-lose situation for the young American voter. They should be allowed a self-insured medical option to invest the medical insurance premium monies in high value equities, commodities, precious metals, or in small business development, rather than to be forced to send premiums that profit private sector insurance corporations.

Overheal

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think paying the fine has become a more popular option to singing up for this.

on principle yes, but in practicality paying the penalty still costs money and yields no health coverage.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It hasnt even been a week yet...

CS Hasuki

InTheTrees wrote: »

?

I'm sorry. Whereabouts in the us are you?

You don't seem to have a full grasp of what's going on.

What enormous effect on jobs?

If you had any experience of current premiums you'd already know how theyve been going through the roof for years. Hence the need for reform.

So I'm confused. You're just trying to sound like you have a clue to push the moral bankruptcy thing right?

Have you been following the jobs numbers being released by the government? All these fantastic jobs that are being added, last count 80%+ were part time. Service sector jobs.
Employers are hiring part timers to keep under the quota of full time workers needed to implement Obamacare.

I'm not saying there is not need for reform. But Obamacare is not reform, it is just an extra tax. Only ones it benefits are the insurance companies.

And I an not pushing moral bankruptcy, that is just obvious. Vietnam, Iraq wars, half a million dead children with sanctions on Iraq. The war mongering with Syria. It made Putin look like mother Teresa.

And I'm not anti American, I'm anti American government.

Jonny7

Vietnam mentioned, that's the sixties, so we're talking 9 different administrations. Can't argue with that logic.

CS Hasuki

Jonny7 wrote: »

Vietnam mentioned, that's the sixties, so we're talking 9 different administrations. Can't argue with that logic.

You mean they have not being a scourge of the planet because it goes back too far and covers too many administrations?

Please explain they point you are trying to make?

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

You mean they have not being a scourge of the planet because it goes back too far and covers too many administrations?

Please explain they point you are trying to make?

How far back we going.. need a point of reference here..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine

I would like to see more transparency in the medical industry. I would like to k ow exactly what costs what before I end up in a hospital or doctors office.

As it stands now, you go in, they do what the like, and they charge you what they like without any accountability for their $10 Advil pill.

And they can be completely obvious about padding up costs if you have insurance. It costs x if you do and it costs y if you pay cash.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The site crashed from so many hits.
People aren't enrolling yet so that can't be used as a criteria for success.
Simples.com

nagilum2

clairefontaine wrote: »

I would like to see more transparency in the medical industry. I would like to k ow exactly what costs what before I end up in a hospital or doctors office.

As it stands now, you go in, they do what the like, and they charge you what they like without any accountability for their $10 Advil pill.

And they can be completely obvious about padding up costs if you have insurance. It costs x if you do and it costs y if you pay cash.

You've nailed it - this, combined with the antitrust exemption enjoyed by much of the healthcare reason, is EXACTLY the problem. Tiered pricing without transparency. The US healthcare industry isn't so much an industry as a cartel. And the Obamacare bill, written and paid for for by health industry lobbyists, does nothing but give the cartel more teeth. Unless you're an stockholder in health companies, in which case you've made a fortune since the ACA passed.

They could write a bill that would 5 pages that would be far more effective:

1. Revoke healthcare industry antitrust exemption
2. Allow reimportation of prescription drugs.
3. Outlaw and enforce laws against any tiered, hidden price schedules - charging vastly different prices for the same service should be illegel

clairefontaine

nagilum2 wrote: »

You've nailed it - this, combined with the antitrust exemption enjoyed by much of the healthcare reason, is EXACTLY the problem. Tiered pricing without transparency. The US healthcare industry isn't so much an industry as a cartel. And the Obamacare bill, written and paid for for by health industry lobbyists, does nothing but give the cartel more teeth. Unless you're an stockholder in health companies, in which case you've made a fortune since the ACA passed.

They could write a bill that would 5 pages that would be far more effective:

1. Revoke healthcare industry antitrust exemption
2. Allow reimportation of prescription drugs.
3. Outlaw and enforce laws against any tiered, hidden price schedules - charging vastly different prices for the same service should be illegel

That's step 1.

Step 2 is shake down the FDA.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its only up a week.
No one needs to enroll for three months.
Who said unprecedented tidal wave of demand?
It is buggy and not working properly presumably this will be worked out.
If you want to use unrealistic criteria to determine success of course it could be called a failure.

clairefontaine

PBS news reporting African American men ans single mothers hit the hardest by Obamacare!

Medicaid expansion optional. hese groups caught between two stools.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well you dont give up if you're a couple of goals down. Besides uprooting the more unreasonable tpartiers would be good.

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well you dont give up if you're a couple of goals down. Besides uprooting the more unreasonable tpartiers would be good.

*IF* any of the Republicans are uprooted at all, it won't be the teaparty types. It'll be whatever moderates are left, because they're the only ones in vulnerable districts. Meanwhile, the hardcore dem districts will elect more extreme left types and the hardcore repub districts will elect more teaparty types.

All that will happen is even greater polarization and greater gridlock.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.