General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe devil, is as always, in the details.
Well, well, well. As the ACA slowly grinds to life, it is turning out that more and more major problems are being revealed. Never mind that the ACA gives the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, with regulations that are few and weak.
Now we're seeing all sorts of nasty little secrets come oozing out. Last week was the revelation that smokers could be paying thousands of dollars more in premiums. This week, we find out that there will be no federal financial assistance for those who can't afford family coverage offered by employers.
"The Obama administration adopted a strict definition of affordable health insurance on Wednesday that will deny federal financial assistance to millions of Americans with modest incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by employers.
In deciding whether an employer’s health plan is affordable, the Internal Revenue Service said it would look at the cost of coverage only for an individual employee, not for a family. Family coverage might be prohibitively expensive, but federal subsidies would not be available to help buy insurance for children in the family.
The policy decision came in a final regulation interpreting ambiguous language in the 2010 health care law. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/irs-to-base-insurance-affordability-on-single-coverage.html?ref=us&_r=0
Wonderful, so while a parent can get coverage for themselves, their kids have to go without? Just how fucked up is that?
Makes you wonder what else is going to come crawling out of the woodwork in the ensuing weeks and months.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)have you ever, in the 4 years of President Obama's presidency, posted a single positive thing about President Obama? (And "I like the guy ... I voted for the guy; but ..." doesn't count.)
Just wondering. 
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)attacks.
How about addressing the topic at hand. What do you think about a worker's kid's unable to get coverage?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)since its a big wide board ...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)what do you think about the 30,000,000+ that now have access to insurance thanks to the AHCA?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I fought my ass off against Clinton's welfare reform. And, as predicted, the poorest just got poorer. IT KILLS ME EACH AND EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY HOW WE THREW SO MANY PEOPLE INTO HUNGER AND POVERTY. Welfare reform was a Republican plan and increased poverty.
The AHCA is a republican plan and WILL increase health care insecurity for those who need it most.
As for your 30,000,000+ number? I saw similar imaginary stats during the welfare reform debate. I did not believe Clinton's numbers and I don't believe Obama's numbers. Why? Because BOTH ARE BASED ON A REPUBLICAN PLAN.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ETA: The least among us will be qualified for Medicaid expansion. And if you live in a state without an enlightened governor willing to expand medicaid and you would otherwise qualify for the expanded Medicaid, you will not be subject to the fines if you don't get coverage.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)The reality is that "access" to coverage is always going to be any number you care to name.
Ultimately, all the spin in the world doesn't change the reality of what the ACA is. At best it will convince some for a time, but in the end reality always wins out. And the reality here is that this is and always has been one of the most diabolical pieces of legislation rammed down our throats in a half century of decline.
Under the ACA the American people, every single person in this country, will be forced by LAW to purchase insurance from these companies or they will suffer whatever legal repurcussions necessary to force compliance.
It doesn't matter if people want it or not, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how high to co-pay goes, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how expensive it gets, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how poor the service becomes, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how little is actually covered, they have to buy it
There are no real restrictions on price increases, they can and will do whatever they like
There are no real guarantees of service any more than there are today
There are no guarantees that the essentially non-existance penalties today will not be prison tomorrow
There is no guarantee that the insurance you have "access" to will be affordable
There are no guarantess of anything at all, except one very important thing...
The insurance companies are now guaranteed your business at any price they choose to name.
Nothing like this has ever been law in our nation's history. It makes Citizen's United look positively progressive.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)
veganlush
(2,049 posts)It says that the taxpayers arent going to pay for all of it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)Attacking the messenger is so unattractive
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)about President Obama an attack on that person. My ... thin-skins abound.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)hoped that the poster could convince me that he/she is something other than a perpetual President Obama critic.
And, BTW, have YOU ever, in the 4 years of President Obama's presidency, posted a single positive thing about President Obama? (And "I like the guy ... I voted for the guy; but ..." doesn't count.)
Just wondering. Cuz you're kind of suspect, too.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I stick to policy which hasn't changed from Carter through Obama. My focus is poverty and peace. Through my voting life time, poverty has increased and war is perpetual and because of Bush and Obama, I've added surveillance.
Skittles
(171,713 posts)YOU'RE ASKING INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS!!!!
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Democratic McCarthyism, just as unappealing as the old fashioned kind.
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)If you want to know whether or not the member has 'ever posted anything positive about President Obama' use the search function and find out - you're not entitled to a response.
Enough with the board-nannying
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Thanks for determining what I am entitled to ...
Can I come out of the corner now, board-nanny?
Skittles
(171,713 posts)and Manny has INDEED said positive things about President Obama, WHEN DESERVED!!!
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and a negative about my Republican Congresswoman
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1052268
and a defense of Obama against M$M errors
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021295174
and a negative about Republican tax plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021222445
and about Mitt Romney
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1167192
and a negative about Missouri's Republican candidate for Governor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1061299
In case anyone is keeping score.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)not the messenger. If the poster bothers you so much, put him/her on ignore. Problem solved and you won't be boring the shit out of the rest of us with your incessant bitching about this particular poster.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Or do you simply reply with snark and insult?
From what I've observed, it is the latter. This thread makes my point perfectly. In the several posts you've made, you have yet to address the issue that I brought up.
leftstreet
(40,680 posts)That's for-profit healthcare for ya!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in the 2010 political environment was ... what???
And lease do not say single-payer or a public option ... everyone there, including Bernie, has indicated that the votes weren't there.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)for coverage I'm not going to get with money I don't have. It's the whole mandate thing that is intrinsically the problem. It's a Republican plan designed to divert from single-payer and was confirmed by a Republican Chief Justice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that's the current state.
When I was talking about what was the alternative, I was asking what could have gotten through Congress.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)is I don't have insurance because I don't have money to buy it. Next year, I get to pay a penalty for not having the money to purchase the MANDATED insurance OR I pay for some lousy insurance that I won't be able to use due to high deductibles with money I don't have.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Are you self-employed? Unemployed? Or, employed by another?
forestpath
(3,102 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)They can.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)and a whole bunch more are coming ..............
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)or I will be one of the ones signing up to pay the penalty or tax instead of paying the greedy insurance bastards.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Of course it sucks. I don't see how this is a step toward single payer when it is a wholly corporate capitalist's dream.
All I see are people having their hours cut so companies don't have to cover people and things like this in the OP and the obscene smoker's charge that came out last week.
I'm starting to wonder if there wasn't something to all the bellyaching by the right on this besides political gain. It's their law after all, they would know what's in it.
All we had to say was "Medicare for all". The people love Medicare across the political spectrum and it's simple to understand. It would have sold. It just wouldn't sell to our elected sellouts. Which is why they made it as messy and convoluted as possible.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Also, there is absolutely no reason for there to be any link between healthcare and a person's employer. You'd think they could at least have gotten that fixed, most businesses would LOVE to be free from contributing towards their employees' health insurance. - edited to add: and most workers would be thrilled, in this age of job insecurity, for their health insurance to have nothing to do with their employer.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Chaining a person to a job simply to keep the benefits is another way they screw you. Give workers mobility and choices and salaries will increase and real competition can occur. Two more things they absolutely do not want.
JHB
(38,213 posts)...with emphasis on the jerk. A Democrat (and especially Obama) pushed for it, so it's "socialism" and therefore equal to a Stalinist police state.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)So sorry to know that your last OP didn't get as many replies as you want/need - which invariably leads to a new OP, like this one, where you hope to be more appreciated.
Keep up the good work - eventually, someone somewhere is bound to notice you.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)Oh, yeah, never mind. Hard to actually defend the indefensible.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)quite pointedly, the issue being your compulsion to post anti-Obama OPs over and over again.
I think we all got your point a very long time ago.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)The issue that I'm addressing in my OP is the fact that millions of kids are going to be uninsured because of the failure to provide credits for the working poor in the ACA.
But hey, I guess it is too difficult for you to address such an issue, so you use snark instead.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)I don't believe for a minute that you are the least bit interested in discussing any issues at all. Your purpose is transparent - post something anti-Obama, then sit back and wait for the replies and recs.
And if one anti-Obama OP doesn't gain any traction, you simply post another on a different topic and hope for better mileage.
We get it - you can't stand Obama. There's really no need to keep repeating yourself.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)I have been very clear about the issues I care about, no matter whether the person in the White House has a D or R behind their name. I care deeply about single payer UHC, have cared a great deal since the late seventies. Yes, I find the ACA to be an abomination, even back when it was Romneycare, or HeritageFoundationcare, even back when it was Nixoncare. It simply isn't a good replacement or alternative to single payer UHC.
Thus, now that it is the law of the land, yes, I will be critical of it. As you see, it is turning out to be an even worse deal than we thought.
So, I'm more than willing to discuss and/or debate this issue with you. However, it is also quite obvious that your loyalty to the president is blinding you to his many faults. If that is how you want to go through life, that is your choice. Just don't expect that everybody will make the same choice.
Don't like somebody who is consistently anti-war, pro-civil liberties, all around liberal in general, touch, get used to it.
So either discuss the issue at hand, or admit that you're ducking out on it.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)"However, it is also quite obvious that your loyalty to the president is blinding you to his many faults."
I said nothing about loyalty to Obama, nor disloyalty, nor (D) nor (R). That's not the point. The point is that you can't stand the man, and for some reason find it necessary to reiterate that constantly.
I would find it equally tiresome if you posted OPs about Sarah Palin, or Limbaugh, or any other person you don't like - over, and over, and over again.
Funny how you pretend to want to discuss 'issues', when the only ones you post about are those you can tie to Obama in some negative way. I find that incredibly boring, and don't wish to try and 'discuss' anything with someone who keeps harping on the same thing incessantly.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Your OP on Obama not closing Gitmo - fail. No traction.
Followed immediately by your OP on the ineptitude of Obamacare - fail. No traction.
On to the ever-popular OP about drones - up for hours now and, so far, no takers.
I appreciate how you post OPs about these 'issues' that are so close to your heart. Can't help but notice how quickly you abandon said issues when the recs-'n'-reply numbers are not to your liking.
Well, maybe you're just "ducking out" when the "issue at hand" doesn't get the attention you feel you deserve.
I rest my case.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)will be forced to buy a product from predatory providers with practically no regulations on said predator. What could possibly go wrong? We wanted public option, so we started debates there instead of at universal health care. We shouldn't be surprised we didn't get what we wanted.
Skittles
(171,713 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Makes one a bit scared as well.
Skittles
(171,713 posts)I simply don't find it believable that this was one of them, unless there was a lot of incompetence
Zorra
(27,670 posts)direct action to force the institution of publicly financed universal healthcare.
Politicians who have been compromised by wealthy private interests, and wealthy private interests themselves, will never allow us to institute a fair and humane healthcare system through the political system.
People really need to stop bullshitting themselves about this, it's so embarrassing in its naivete. If we want a reasonable healthcare system, we're going to have to take it and make it for ourselves from outside the system. End of story.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Did you expect ACA to reverse that?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Oh wait... er...
Autumn
(48,962 posts)When Obama called it that, I knew there was more coming.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)it likely needs to be clarified.
Fact Sheet on Proposed Affordable Care Act Regulations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022291387
Still, the NY Times article and other reports appear to be making incomplete assumptions
Under the I.R.S. rule, such costs would be considered affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.
Is this a single-income family? If this is based on two incomes, what would prevent either parent from covering both kids (assuming neither parent earns more than $26,000)?
The Medicaid subsidies are up to 400 percent of FPL (about $90,000 for a family of four), and a family of three qualifies for full Medicaid up to $26,344.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929
The assumptions about children are also wrong:
Who qualifies for CHIP?
Every state operates a CHIP, although most states have unique names for their programs like Child Health Plus (New York), Healthy Families (California), and Hoosier Healthwise (Indiana). In several states, CHIP and Medicaid are combined into one program.
Here are some CHIP basics:
- Basic eligibility for CHIP: Children up to age 19 in families with incomes up to $45,000 per year (for a family of four) are likely to be eligible for coverage. In many states, children in families with higher incomes can also qualify.
- Eligibility and pregnancy: Pregnant women may be eligible for CHIP. Coverage for expectant mothers generally includes lab testing and labor and delivery costs, and at least 60 days of care after delivery.
- Citizenship and immigration status: CHIP covers U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants. States have the option of covering children and pregnant women who are lawfully residing in the United States. Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for CHIP.
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP.html
Also, what would prevent the other family members (spouse and children) from securing health care on the exchange?