Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance

[bonehead]

So, let me get this right...

Do Americans believe the healthcare costs will lower now?

It is way to high as it is, and instead of lowering it the Gov brings more people in to cover the costs, instead of reducing them

The system is built for the industry to make tons of money so good luck taking your money back from the major players. What can be realistically done is to lower the RATES of increases in the future. The only way to lower the cost of healthcare is for Americans to get healthier but at the moment there are too many factors working against us. You see the sicker we are the more money someone makes.

[Tamara]

"Bait and Switch"......ever hear of it?

You know, where they get you into the store with the promise of one thing, say when you get there, "Oh, I'm sorry, that's sold out (or he didn't deliver), but we have this here that is good, costs a bit more, but it is good."

We don't like it when a business does that to us and it is suppose to be against the law for them do it.

So how is this any different?

[zraver]

Those people will pay at tax time and/or when they get a major medical event. They may pay late/too little but they will pay something which is better than what was happening before when up to 25% of the patients who go to a hospital are not insured and skip out leaving the rest to pick up the tab via higher healthcare bills and premiums.

Same people are still going to be free loading, only now it'll be via medicaid which gives them vastly expanded access to services and treatments.

Joining the plan after the fact will get their bills paid thus saving their all important credit rating and allowing them to.......build the wealth that they would have been denied otherwise.

Uhm no, becuase the discretionary income they need to build wealth has been taxed away to provided grandma six more months in a hospital bed.

If these people were smart they will keep their insurance,

They can't, the ACA tanked the who realm of insurance that the young actually needed.

healthier people work more and thus get promoted faster.

Oh so it snot base don education, who you know, demand in the feild.... Your just making stuff up.

They will also be able to take advantage of wellness which is highly encouraged under the ACA. If they take care of the small stuff early they can long delay onset of the big diseases or head them off entirely saving the system billions or more down the road.

And guys need maternity coverage to make sure thy get wellness visits? Women need to pay for Ed treatments and prostate exams to make sure they get wellness visits? Hogwash,the who premise of ACA is not to give the young and healthiest anything- the system needs them to continue not using services in order to pay for the steeply discounted services provided to others.

[zraver]

The system is built for the industry to make tons of money so good luck taking your money back from the major players. What can be realistically done is to lower the RATES of increases in the future. The only way to lower the cost of healthcare is for Americans to get healthier but at the moment there are too many factors working against us. You see the sicker we are the more money someone makes.

First, thats not the only way to lower costs. Single payer is cheaper, and switching to a system that is not focused on extending life span but is focused on life quality are two examples. Second, how exactly does steeply discounting care for people who make poor life choices and removing the current penalties for making bad life choices encourage people to get healthier?

[citanon]

Two of the circling sharks, baring their teeth.

Rebranding won't fix Obamacare, top ad exec says

[Doktor]

More nitpicks...

Why Healthcare.gov Sucks? Because They Hired Political Cronies, Not Internet Native Companies To Build It | Techdirt

Pari, your offer is still valid?

[Parihaka]

More nitpicks...

Why Healthcare.gov Sucks? Because They Hired Political Cronies, Not Internet Native Companies To Build It | Techdirt

Pari, your offer is still valid?

Damn straight, I could move a competent team in tomorrow.

[Officer of Engineers]

It's a trap. They'll change the specs on you every 24 hours.

[kato]

The only way to lower the cost of healthcare is for Americans to get healthier

Actually, the only way to curtail expenses is centralized planning.

Pretty much all countries that have mandatory health insurance also have some sort of centralized fee table that lays out what the health insurances are required to cover, and exactly how much they're paying for it. Seems the US has the first part of that down, but the second part seems to be missing. This second part is usually - in most countries - hashed out between bodies that represent the health insurance side and bodies that represent the actual health care side.

[Doktor]

It's a trap. They'll change the specs on you every 24 hours.

Welcome to the world of creatives, Col. Actually, these days they change the specs every 8 hours.

[Parihaka]

It's a trap. They'll change the specs on you every 24 hours.

Pffft, for 1/100 of 50% of GDP for one year, they can make us all wear barbie costumes for all I care.
It's just a website, throw clever people at it in sufficient numbers and we can implement the changes before they've finished articulating them.

[bigross86]

So, I ask the experts, is this a fair representation of Obamacare? If no, please explain why not. If yes, please explain why people went along with it?

The Affordable CAR Act of 2014

The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The Affordable CAR Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new car by April, 2014.

These ‘affordable’ cars will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, tags, registration, fuel, maintenance, or repair costs.

This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase cars. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ car of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new car. If you purchase your car before the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ tires (does not include mounting).

In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable car,’ the cost of owning a car will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their car will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents car(s) to drive until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own car.

If you already have a car, you can keep yours (not really). If you don’t want or don’t need a car, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable car’ from a private business, you can buy a starter car from the U. S. government ‘affordable car exchange.’ Such a car will have the basic necessities and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a similar car purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax dollars will subsidize the purchase of a car from the U. S. government’s ‘affordable car exchange,’ it will appear that you are getting a good deal.

Failure to use the car will also result in fines. People living in areas with no access to roads are not exempt. Pre-existing conditions such as age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor lack of desire are not acceptable excuses for not using your car.

A government review board will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your car, along with how many people can ride in your car. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their car, and will also decide if your car has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories like spinning rims or a newer and more expensive car.

Those that can afford luxury cars will be required to do so … it’s only fair. The government will also decide the color for each car. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a car, they and their families can obtain cars free at the expense of tax payers. This includes lifetime maintenance and automatic adjustments for fuel charges.

Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$), Muslims and Amish are also exempt.

[bigross86]

And now, another question. Like any good newbie, I spent quite a while reading the entire thread, every single post, and there's something that has really stood out for me:

According to Jad, Zraver and Astralis (and according to the law itself, if I'm reading this correctly), everyone MUST pay into the healthcare fund, we'll use Zraver's figure of $20 a day.

Now, the young folks (Generation Y) pay in $20 a day, even if they don't need it, because it pays for the older generation (Generation X) and their healthcare needs. In return, when they are older, the new younger generation (Generation Z) will pay for their healthcare costs, and so on and so forth.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that model sounds an awful lot like Social Security in its current manifestation, where the Generation Y are covering the withdrawal needed for Generation X's retirement costs, and are hoping that Generation Z will be able to cover the withdrawal needed for Generation Y's retirement costs.

So, why would someone take a business plan that was already shown once not to work, and on a massive scale no less, and try to make another gargantuan plan run on the same flawed model?

[JAD_333]

And now, another question. Like any good newbie, I spent quite a while reading the entire thread, every single post, and there's something that has really stood out for me:

Oh, the pain...

According to Jad, Zraver and Astralis (and according to the law itself, if I'm reading this correctly), everyone MUST pay into the healthcare fund, we'll use Zraver's figure of $20 a day.

They're not exactly paying into a 'healthcare fund', but paying premiums for an insurance policy that covers everything, from maternity care to ingrown toenails. The idea is that the cost of all healthcare is evenly spread out among everyone.

Now, the young folks (Generation Y) pay in $20 a day, even if they don't need it, because it pays for the older generation (Generation X) and their healthcare needs. In return, when they are older, the new younger generation (Generation Z) will pay for their healthcare costs, and so on and so forth.

That's one of the arguments in favor of the plan, but also a contentious issue. Z argues that making young people pay a higher premium when they need less healthcare will restrict their ability to build wealth, e.g. buy a house, etc. The counterargument is that today's young will become tomorrow's seniors and that unless today's young pay a higher premium tomorrow's seniors would be paying much higher premiums. The thing to remember is that under Obamacare no one can be turned down for insurance. Seniors who heretofore were denied insurance had to pay out of pocket until they became eligible for Medicare. Giving them coverage is an expensive burden, because many of them have preexisting conditions--the reason they couldn't get insurance before the ACA came along. So, the solution baked into the ACA is that a major part of the financial burden of insuring elderly people will be borne by healthy people, i.e. the young).

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me that model sounds an awful lot like Social Security in its current manifestation, where the Generation Y are covering the withdrawal needed for Generation X's retirement costs, and are hoping that Generation Z will be able to cover the withdrawal needed for Generation Y's retirement costs.

So, why would someone take a business plan that was already shown once not to work, and on a massive scale no less, and try to make another gargantuan plan run on the same flawed model?

Good question. One unfortunate similarity is that government runs them both, and that in itself is a questionable model. However, they're really not the same, although both are mandatory, one as long as you're alive and the other as long as you earn income.

Social Security is strictly a pension plan; people get out of it what they are entitled to by law, no more no less, and they have to wait until they reach a certain age to begin receiving monthly checks. By law the 'contributions' are classified taxes. Also, most Americans like Social Security because they get something back. With the ACA, you don't contribute; you pay premiums to buy an insurance product; the only taxes you might pay are fines for not having insurance. If you die after a long, healthy life and never use the insurance you bought and not get back a cent of the premiums you paid.

The premiums under ACA go to private insurance companies; whereas contributions under Social Security come under government management. Currently the tax rate is 12.4% of earned income (up to $113k) and the money is paid into the Social Security Trust fund, not the general fund. Is the model flawed? Yes, but only to the extent that the outflow of pensions paid is generally greater than the inflow of taxes collected. In other words, it's not self-sustaining. Under the ACA, premiums can be adjusted to cover total healthcare costs, but Social Security taxes
can only be raised by Congress, and from time to time it raises the tax rate and changes the eligibility rules hoping to balance outflow with inflow, but it only manages to give the program 20-30 more years of life, and has to come back later with new fixes. Fixing Social Security is our most contentious political issue--the so-called 'third rail' of American politics. The ACA manages to avoid that when it comes to raising or lowering premiums. It's political problems are of a different nature, as you've no doubt seen.

[zraver]

Z argues that making young people pay a higher premium when they need less healthcare will restrict their ability to build wealth, e.g. buy a house, etc. The counterargument is that today's young will become tomorrow's seniors and that unless today's young pay a higher premium tomorrow's seniors would be paying much higher premiums.

As you point out when explaining social security, these premiums are not going into a trust fund with into the coffers of a private company. There is no "investing" in their own future. They are being taxed to provide unearned benefits to younger Boomers and older Gen Xers. They can't even pass their own bills on their children. The Gen Y's are having fewer kids so the 2K's are not a big enough group.


its theft.


Ben

I get my $20 via the following 2.64 trillion in health care spending/ 317,000,000 people = 8328 - 1/4 for reasonable self care costs= 6246/ 30 days= $17.11 a day rounded up.