OBAMACARE- good or bad

[babybattersplatter]

I want people to say whether they like obamacare or not.

I hear premiums are going up by as much as 60 percent.

About 6 years ago obama was upset that an insurance company in california was increasing premiums 60 percent and he said he would make sure an investigation took place.

The company increased premiums less or phased the increase in slower to avoid angering our president. The company is near a pool i used to visit at L A fitness.

By happen stance a few tears later obama spent a night at the hotel near the pool

I no longer work and get free insurance provided by the taxpayers. Would like every one to comment especially if you work and pay all or part of it ?

I always figured companys would work people part time or hire less workers to avoid obama care.

I understand the obamacare increases will be out NOV ! - a week b 4 the election -and efforts are underway to delay the notification so we can have crooked hillary shoved down our throats and up our asses. Am I being unfair!

 

[knowone]

It's a good thing and without it I wouldn't have gotten the eye surgery I needed.

 

[pool_hustler]

OBAMACARE- good or bad

Probably some kind of mixture. I think it's too soon to affix an absolute to it.

One thing I like about it is that those with pre existing conditions are no longer excluded. And if I have to pay a bit more so that myself and the millions of other americans who suffer those conditions are covered it's ok with me.

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

If liberals had their way it would be a single payer system and they would love it. It actually was set up to fail with that goal in mind.

My premiums have doubled since 2009 when I was paying roughly 3900 dollars a year.

It huffs dong.

 

[Jagger69]

It's a half-measure and, although it has enabled millions of people to acquire some type of health coverage, it puts way too much burden on businesses to provide access and individuals to often pay exorbitant premiums. In those regards, it is inequitable. If government's responsibility is to "provide for the general welfare", a single-payer not-for-profit system (simply an extension of Medicare in effect) is what it should be. That said, I have no problem with for-profit insurance companies continuing to peddle their services to those willing to pay for them for advanced or supplemental coverage (again, just like Medicare). I really believe that every American citizen deserves some type of medical coverage but the ACA just has too many faults to be the answer. It can't be taken away (at least not yet) so the only hope is to evolve it into something better.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

It did not go far enough.
We should have national healthcare and its just wrong that we do not.
Turn off the defense spiket and put that $$ to better use.

 

[Rey C.]

To begin with, I was for general health care reform. The issue of pre-existing conditions was a big driver in my thinking. But the ACA/ObamaCare is one of the worst written, most cobbled together laws that's been written in my lifetime. A lot was promised, but in the end, it now seems to be collapsing under its own bureaucratic weight. There are a number of mandated, "zero cost", medically unnecessary or medically elective/optional "nanny provisions" that were included, simply because certain politically connected groups demanded their inclusion. But a greater number of serious and/or chronic medical conditions were not addressed at all. One of the most glaring nanny provisions, that drives up costs overall, is the requirement that ALL plans offered in the U.S. must offer "free" birth control, specifically those for women: any and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While that's nice and all, people who are on medically necessary drugs to treat a host of life threatening, chronic conditions (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) have to either pay the standard copay, as before, or pay the entire cost of their prescriptions if they're on an HDHP (high deductible health plan - a plan with at least a $1300/yr. deductible for an individual, or $2600/yr. for a family).

While it has helped some people, no doubt, what many are finding is that doctors and hospitals are not required to accept these plans. So it certainly was not, as Obama claimed, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". A number of cancer treatment centers and specialists at various hospitals do not accept ObamaCare plans. Just as before, because of Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, no one can be turned away from an emergency room. But once you're stable, they can still boot you out if they don't take your insurance, or you have no insurance.

And where are we going? For those who are employed, one place is, just as 401Ks gave corporate employers a way to stop offering pensions, companies are now looking forward to the day when they can just make an annual contribution to an employee and that employee will then have to go out and purchase their own health care plan. It will greatly ease the administrative cost and benefits burden on the HR side, but it shifts that burden to the employee. Unintended consequences and such. IMO, not good.

The intentions were probably good. But as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Straight Shooter]

To begin with, I was for general health care reform. The issue of pre-existing conditions was a big driver in my thinking. But the ACA/ObamaCare is one of the worst written, most cobbled together laws that's been written in my lifetime. A lot was promised, but in the end, it now seems to be collapsing under its own bureaucratic weight. There are a number of mandated, "zero cost", medically unnecessary or medically elective/optional "nanny provisions" that were included, simply because certain politically connected groups demanded their inclusion. But a greater number of serious and/or chronic medical conditions were not addressed at all. One of the most glaring nanny provisions, that drives up costs overall, is the requirement that ALL plans offered in the U.S. must offer "free" birth control, specifically those for women: any and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods. While that's nice and all, people who are on medically necessary drugs to treat a host of life threatening, chronic conditions (diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) have to either pay the standard copay, as before, or pay the entire cost of their prescriptions if they're on an HDHP (high deductible health plan - a plan with at least a $1300/yr. deductible for an individual, or $2600/yr. for a family).

While it has helped some people, no doubt, what many are finding is that doctors and hospitals are not required to accept these plans. So it certainly was not, as Obama claimed, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". A number of cancer treatment centers and specialists at various hospitals do not accept ObamaCare plans. Just as before, because of Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, no one can be turned away from an emergency room. But once you're stable, they can still boot you out if they don't take your insurance, or you have no insurance.

And where are we going? For those who are employed, one place is, just as 401Ks gave corporate employers a way to stop offering pensions, companies are now looking forward to the day when they can just make an annual contribution to an employee and that employee will then have to go out and purchase their own health care plan. It will greatly ease the administrative cost and benefits burden on the HR side, but it shifts that burden to the employee. Unintended consequences and such. IMO, not good.

The intentions were probably good. But as the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Obama was fucked either way. In any type of reform there's going to be winners and losers and ideally you would want there to be more winners which I believe is the case here when we now have 90% of Americans who are insured. He got shit for saying you could keep your plan if you wanted and he would've gotten shit had he done the opposite and said some people will be hurt by this law and they'll lose their insurance. I wish we could've crafted health reform where not a single American would be negatively affected by it but unfortunately we live in the real world. And if we're going to go by the standard that we can't pass a law that will negatively affect some Americans, we might as well get rid of Congress. Ultimately a share of the blame goes to Congress because alot of the ACA could've been fixed by Congress

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

Obama was fucked either way. In any type of reform there's going to be winners and losers and ideally you would want there to be more winners which I believe is the case here when we now have 90% of Americans who are insured. He got shit for saying you could keep your plan if you wanted and he would've gotten shit had he done the opposite and said some people will be hurt by this law and they'll lose their insurance. I wish we could've crafted health reform where not a single American would be negatively affected by it but unfortunately we live in the real world. And if we're going to go by the standard that we can't pass a law that will negatively affect some Americans, we might as well get rid of Congress. Ultimately a share of the blame goes to Congress because alot of the ACA could've been fixed by Congress

Democrats: Lips moving, lies coming out.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/33-million-americans-still-dont-have-health-insurance/

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Democrats: Lips moving, lies coming out.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/33-million-americans-still-dont-have-health-insurance/

GOP are quite the truthful bunch.
And fear mongerers on top....

 

[Straight Shooter]

Democrats: Lips moving, lies coming out.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/33-million-americans-still-dont-have-health-insurance/

You're making my point. I'm no mathematician but I believe 90% is greater than 10%

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

You're making my point. I'm no mathematician but I believe 90% is greater than 10%

No I am saying more lies and is where you probably got your numbers.

But the new numbers reveal that most of the uninsured last year were people who should have been able to access insurance under the law. That presents a major challenge for President Obama in the final years of his term, but also an opportunity: Millions of Americans qualify for coverage but, for whatever combination of reasons, haven’t yet signed up.

 

[BCsSecretAlias]

Additionally, there are "cardboard cutout" health insurance companies that do not offer any coverage but is a mechanism to avoid the penalty, being added into the numbers as insured .

 

[ArthurTurner]

Good or bad? In general, good, because millions of people who did not have insurance are now insurance. But it could have been much better if Medicare had been expanded to cover everyone. And any program that leaves us at the mercy of insurance companies is not good.

 

[Rey C.]

Obama was fucked either way. In any type of reform there's going to be winners and losers and ideally you would want there to be more winners which I believe is the case here when we now have 90% of Americans who are insured. He got shit for saying you could keep your plan if you wanted and he would've gotten shit had he done the opposite and said some people will be hurt by this law and they'll lose their insurance. I wish we could've crafted health reform where not a single American would be negatively affected by it but unfortunately we live in the real world. And if we're going to go by the standard that we can't pass a law that will negatively affect some Americans, we might as well get rid of Congress. Ultimately a share of the blame goes to Congress because alot of the ACA could've been fixed by Congress

Obama wasn't fucked either way. No one (who supported health care reform) expected a law which was going to be pure as the driven snow. But by handing the ball off to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the health insurance companies, even Ray Charles (blind and dead) could have seen that there would be major issues with this measure. Of course a share of the blame goes to Congress. That's who had to vote on the bill. And no matter what Obama's conceptual input was, they were in charge of the final version that went up for the vote. But still, this is one that the President spearheaded and it has his name attached to it. Clearly, it was not as well thought out and put together as it could/should have been. The program's early infrastructure flaws and website failures were inexcusable. And way too many people were allowed to hang around, even after it was clear that they were incompetent to the Nth degree (Kathleen Sebelius, to name one).

What I'm saying is, there were some unintended consequences that should have been caught during the risk analysis phase. Others, admittedly, would have still been a surprise. Yes, that does happen in any system change or process improvement exercise. And while it's nice that we went from roughly 85% insured to now 90% +/-, that doesn't tell the whole story. That's a very raw statistic. I would be curious to see data on the quality, effectiveness and cost of the coverage now and into the future. We're just seeing the tip of the [NOBABE]iceberg[/NOBABE] now (good and bad).

For you younger folks without kids, these HDHPs are just what the doctor ordered (pardon the pun). But as you age and have children, you'll think that you have "medical insurance coverage"... but what you'll have in reality is catastrophic health care coverage. And that was another thing that the ACA was about. Only (the more I read), it seems that was an intended consequence.

 

[babybattersplatter]

Supposedly the Obama care increases for the year are due to be announced nov 1 a week b 4 the pres election
and they are finding a way to delay the release till dec after Hillary is elected (sorry trump supporters)

VOTERS AGAIN are denied information valuable to voting decision making

 

[Rey C.]

Until there are some meaningful and effective measures to control the cost of care, this is going to remain a major issue, no matter what the structure of the system is; public single payer or private/public. The ACA simply puts those without means onto the public system (Medicaid) and partially pays for that by forcing the working middle class and above into plans that provide nothing more than catastrophic coverage. The changes to Medicare (people who have paid in) in favor of Medicaid (people who generally have not paid in) is also troubling to me. What sort of society takes away from hard working, elderly, retired people and gives more to younger people, who (for whatever reason) have not contributed much, if anything, and guarantees them free birth control, drug addiction treatment, etc.? Why should an unemployed, 25 year old drug addict be able to get free prescriptions and medical care, while a working family has to borrow from family, friends and credit cards in order not to have their credit ruined by a hospital collection? :nono:

How many people here can afford to write a check for $4000 every year, before their high deductible plan pays the first penny? If you're on a family plan, how many can afford to write a check for $8000? Those are the annual deductibles and maximum out of pocket amounts for the (common) high deductible plan that my company offers. And the worst thing is to get sick and be hospitalized near the end of one calendar year and the illness continues into the next year. Your $4000/$8000 deductible applies to each year. There is no carry over. So that potentially puts most middle class people in a horrible financial bind. One of my coworkers is facing and struggling with this exact situation. He's on the hook for $16,000 in unpaid medical bills right now. And with the Cadillac Tax still looming, Obama's plan to tax the Health Savings Account contributions, that employers sometimes make to employee accounts, simply guarantees that companies will stop making those contributions. What other choice do they have? Why pay a 40% tax on a benefit?! So, they're just going to discontinue that benefit. With more and more companies choosing to go the high deductible route, this whole thing strikes me as just a way to say that X% of the population has medical insurance. But it's more like saying that X% of the population has auto insurance, when in actuality, a growing percentage of it is just high deductible/low coverage, basic liability insurance. If, outside of totaling your car, the insurance doesn't pay anything, what the hell good is it?

If you're controlling the cost of any sort of medical coverage by making people afraid to go to the doctor, then that seems like a cruel and ineffective "cost containment solution", IMO.

 

[icytea]

Not liking it at all, I'm starting to get the feeling we've been scammed

 

[ArthurTurner]

Not liking it at all, I'm starting to get the feeling we've been scammed

If you don't like it, then write your representatives and demand a single payer system or at least an expansion of Medicare to everyone. Too many people are tied to the old model where insurance companies control everything. Insurances companies are not your friends. They're not in the business of providing the best health care. They're in the business of making a profit. And they don't care what your doctor thinks; if he makes a medical decision that might save your life, as mine did this spring, some doctor 1,000 miles away, who does not know you, can say he made the wrong decision, refuse to pay him and refuse to pay the hospital. That happened to me this spring and I had no choice but to waste my time going to my state's medical review board to appeal. Poor (and expensive) health care in this country lies at the feet of the insurance industry

 

[babybattersplatter]

LOOKS like a lot of insurance companies are pulling out Obama care- less options mean less competition and = HIGHER PRICE
WHEN DONALD TRUMP is sworn in as president Obama will be the only one on Obamacare- yes he bought a policy ( for himself it was to costly to include his family- lol