Originally Posted By Donny The total of those who have signed up appears to be about 2 million <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-20131230,0,296377.story#ixzz2oxiO1KWn">http://www.latimes.com/nation/...oxiO1KWn</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt There was a big debate about this at a dinner party I attended on Christmas eve. The argument centered around whether or not the failed initial launch of Obamacare would be an issue during the next presidential election.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Americans have a short attention span. They'll only be focused on what the media is currently reporting on at that time, probably some minor scandal featuring a lesser celebrity.
Originally Posted By andyll >>There was a big debate about this at a dinner party I attended on Christmas eve. The argument centered around whether or not the failed initial launch of Obamacare would be an issue during the next presidential election. I would assume that by 2016 the issue will pretty well be resolved one way or another. What this does mean is that republican's cannot just say repeal, repeal, repeal. It's too late for that. They have to either leave it as it is or work to fix the issues. The one thing they could do is allow the Federal exchange to sell across state lines instead of being state specific.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The total of those who have signed up appears to be about 2 million<< Which makes it a lot more plausible that the administration could hit its 7 million goal by March. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/30/obamacare-just-might-net-its-7-million-sign-ups/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ign-ups/</a> Remember when President Obama was a failure and the website was going to totally destroy Democrats in 2014? Good times....
Originally Posted By Donny How many young people are siging up for health care should be the question we are all asking if you want to see this program live but from what I am hearing the vast majority are going to just going to pay the fine and thats going to be a bigger problem then the website.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda And this is exactly why we national single payer health insurance. And, in my opinion, it should be run similiarily to Medicare, with the goverment portion covering base insurance. If you want more, just like Medicare, you can purchase add on plans. Works great for my mom, my aunt, and worked great for my late uncle.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>How many young people are siging up for health care should be the question we are all asking<< Which raises the question, why are tea party groups lobbying so hard to make sure young people don't sign up? They would rather see Obamacare die than let millions of people get health insurance. Super patriots!
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That'll change, Donny. They'll have to pay 1% of their income in the individual mandate fee this year, 2% next year, and 2.5% the year after that. They'll be paying as much as they'd pay for a bronze plan, with the exception that they wouldn't be eligible for any subsidies and they would still be 100% responsible for the medical expenses. It's a no-brainer to get insurance, but unfortunately the GOP's lies appeal to people without critical thinking skills. We need to stop treating people for free in emergency departments now that almost everyone is eligible for health insurance.
Originally Posted By Donny the sad trueth is that this tax sucking monster will help some but over burden the majority.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, just the opposite. There will be some people who are "losers" but more who are "winners." Which is exactly why the Republicans are so desperate to stop it. Taxpayers currently pay for ER care for those without insurance, which is THE most expensive way to do it, by far. That will lessen with the ACA. The non-partisan CBO has calculated that the ACA will mean a modest CUT to the deficit, not a raise. Stop drinking the koolaid, Donny.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Donny, right now the system overburdens the hospitals who are forced to provide uncompensated care and the people who have health insurance. Health care costs are not going to go up, but more of the people who are using health care will be paying for it compared to now. We would be a lot better off by getting healthcare out of the hands of profit-sucking corporations who demand that 15 or 20 percent of every dollar spent on health care be used for investor profits rather than for helping the sick and dying. You should be angry at them for getting us in such a screwed up place to begin with. It cracks me up to see so-called conservatives whine about a program designed to make people take responsibility for their health care.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I saw an interesting segment on NBC news last night featuring a car dealership that was dropping its health plan in 2014 because of rising insurance premiums. To assist their employees, the owner of the dealership connected with a local insurance agent to assist employees find coverage and is giving each employee $2400/year to do what they choose with it. It was interesting because the lower-income workers were thrilled - they are getting very cheap (even "free" for some) insurance via the exchanges in addition to the $2400 bonus from the emloyer. Higher income workers were greatly dismayed when they saw the insurance rates (unsubsidized) they were going to have to pay in addition to the worse coverage they were going to get. The $2400 barely made a dent. Some were asking how it was fair that they all lost their employer coverage and some are having to pay a lot while others are not having to pay anything. If this becomes a trend over the next couple of years, which many are predicting it will, those in the higher income brackets will be doing a lot of head-scratching.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>featuring a car dealership that was dropping its health plan in 2014 because of rising insurance premiums.<< This is the real story. That's what amazes me. People casually mention that employers are cutting off insurance or putting people part-time, and then they focus on how it's all about Obamacare. No, it's about companies too greedy to provide their employees with basic healthcare. Of course, these same business owners who cut healthcare scream and moan that single payer is socialism. So they want neither: employer-based insurance, nor single-payer. Instead it's, "Everyone fend for themselves!"
Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.viralnova.com/hospital-bill/">http://www.viralnova.com/hospital-bill/</a> In the meantime, here's a story about a guy who was billed $7,500 for a 2 hr hospital room stay for appendicitis. Not the surgery, mind, just the recovery room. Total bill was $55,000. Fortunately, this man has insurance. So it was only...$11,000.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "No, it's about companies too greedy to provide their employees with basic healthcare." I am with you when it comes to single-payer, but I think this statement is off the mark and betrays an anti-capitalism bias. First off, I don't understand why it is an employer's responsibility to provide healthcare. In fact, I think that is the primary problem with our system. We pool risks way too inefficiently (i.e. at the employer level). We will all be better off when this system finally breaks down. Secondly, the greed is more at the provider/drug company level than the insurance company level. In fact, insurance company profits are capped under the ACA so that cannot possibly be the driver of the rising costs. It has to be something else.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "In the meantime, here's a story about a guy who was billed $7,500 for a 2 hr hospital room stay for appendicitis. Not the surgery, mind, just the recovery room. Total bill was $55,000. Fortunately, this man has insurance. So it was only...$11,000." Ridiculous, right? In no other country do people pay bills like this. I am dealing with one from my own household - over $60,000 for a 3-day hospital stay and the insurance company is using every trick in the book not to pay. I have spent more than 100 hours dealing with this issue, have involved regulators and lawyers, etc. There has to be a better way...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>and betrays an anti-capitalism bias.<< Good! I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-not thinking through the consequences. If a business owner doesn't want to provide health insurance due to cost, I get that; the system sucks. But my experience (both personal and watching the news) with small business owners tells me many of them are the same kind of people that would scream bloody murder if we tried to go to some sort of government based healthcare program. So here we have a necessity that is too expensive for a business owner to provide, but they don't want the government to provide it, so.... End result? You're on your own! Good luck, ya'll!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Well, there is the theory that prices would drop like a rock if insurance wasn't there to prop them up. Years ago I owned a residential care home. I had to carry liability insurance for all the reasons that one might conjure up. At a group meeting with other owners, I suggested that we all drop our insurance coverage. The reason... the majority of claims were frivolous. Most small business owners were always working on the edge. There were no large cash reserves and we, many times, operated week to week barely able to cover expenses. In other words, the well was almost dry. The mere mention of insurance would light up the eyes of people looking for a quick buck from insurance pockets. Lawsuits that would never have been instituted due to the fact that there was nothing to get even if they won, were set in motion because of the fact that insurance existed. It was very expensive and cut deeply into the bottom line. Many of us couldn't make money due to that alone. I think that this is the reason that medical cost are so high. They charge more because they knew they could get it. In fact, if you had a raw bill from a hospital for 60K, insurance companies would just say we will pay half of that, or less. They could do that due to leverage, but the sap without insurance had to pay the full boat. My feeling is that small companies dropping coverage is really a way to kick start the ACA and eventually make those costs come down to a reasonable level. That does have a domino effect. The medical community can no longer get high rates, their suppliers are forced to lower theirs because of lower demand and so on. So, I see the dropping of paid coverage by employers as a positive in getting the ACA to work the way it is intended, but, it won't happen overnight. I think that this is the right path and, for the life of me, I do not understand why conservatives are against it. Oh, wait, yes I do. It's because the name Obama is in Obamacare. Sadly, our government is run by a lot of shortsighted, ignorant, bigoted and spineless individuals. I can't speak for the rest of you, but for myself, I know exactly where the blame falls and I plan to express that in the upcoming elections.
