General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYay, ObamaRomneyCare! 23% rate increase!
What happens when you mix:
- laissez-fair health care financing, and
- a doctor's union that sets the cost of each procedure, the rules on which procedures must be used when (mostly based on profit, not evidence), and which sets strict limits on the number of doctors that may practice?
- a law forcing people to buy insurance?
You get huge rate increases in state with the already-most-expensive health care, in the country with the already-most-expensive health care. my friend's small Mass. company just got notice that their health insurance (BCBS) is going up 23% for the same coverage. And we've had RomenyCare for a number of years already.
23%!
Yay, team!
Oh, when Obama fought mightily for the public option RomeyHeritageCare, did anyone mention that the land of Romneycare has the most expensive health insurance in the US? And that it was about to leap even more in cost?
This. Is. Bullshit.
We. Are. Stupid.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The 99% are nothing but a resource to be extracted and processed for maximum profit.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Utah Phillips recounting what he once said to a high school class:
"You are about to be told one more time that you are America's most valuable natural resource. Have you seen what they do to valuable natural resources?! Have you seen a strip mine? Have you seen a clear cut in the forest? Have you seen a polluted river? Don't ever let them call you a valuable natural resource! They're going to strip mine your soul. They're going to clear cut your best thoughts for the sake of profit unless you learn to resist, because the profit system follows the path of least resistance and following the path of least resistance is what makes the river crooked!"
Well, there was a great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments. Mine.
I was borne to the door screaming epithets over my shoulder, something to the effect of: "Make a break for it, kids! Flee to the wilderness! The one within, if you can find it."
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)...that pays for it's own feed and shelter.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)Hey Manny, let's impeach Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)opposition to all that was wrong about it? Mandated Ins. I sure wish I could get Congress to force the public to buy my product. No PO. And in the end all the excuses 'we need Republicans to be on board so we can't have a PO, they will never vote for it' were just that, excuses. Because no matter how far backwards Dems bent themselves to try to please Republicans, in the end Dems had to pass that bill all by themselves. Which means, they COULD have included a PO. Well, they could if they were not trying to please and to SAVE the Private Insurance Corps, who got a windfall from this bill.
But it's a done deal so we'll have to wait a while until we get a Progressive Congress and WH, unfunded by Big Corporations, before this all can be fixed. THAT has to be the goal now. We learned what it means to have the Third Way running things in this party and that is what has to change.
But whatever made you think that people who opposed mandated insurance ever since Republicans came up with the idea were going to suddenly support it just because of the letter 'D'?
I oppose mandated insurance, always did and always will. There is something obscene about people having to 'shop at a marketplace' for their very lives.
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)
LittleGirl
(8,939 posts)
NealK
(6,530 posts)
leftstreet
(38,737 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...will be flowing into the pockets of the For Profit Health Insurance Industry EVERY SINGLE YEAR in the from of "subsidies"?
I haven't, but I'm sure it will make the $4Billion going to Big Oil look like chump change.
At least we get something from Big Oil for our money.
We get NOTHING from the Health Insurance Industry we now subsidize.
The Health Insurance Industry:
*manufactures NOTHING
*provides NO useful service
*creates NO Value Added Wealth
...but has now obtained the Corporate Holy Grail,
an Open Door to the US Treasury to guarantee their Profits with Tax Payer Money with little or no cost controls.
[font size=3]Public Money transferred to the Private Pockets of the already RICH!
That IS the "Uniquely American Solution![/font]
I am one of those who will benefit financially from the ACA (if Arkansas gets its shit together with their bizarre Private/Public Medicaid Expansion),
but I STILL oppose this Health Insurance SCAM on the traditional Democratic Party Principles I have fought for many years.
There is a much better, much cheaper, more egalitarian, much more effective way to do this without wasting BILLIONS Enriching the For Profit Insurance Industry. That is tax payer Money that will NOT be spent getting Health Care to Americans.
The Corporate Holy Grail:
[font size=3]Taxpayer Subsidies & Mandated Customers[/font]
Marr
(20,317 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)could think of was 'they lied to us', OUR party. They had enough votes to pass a bill with the PO and to STICK IT to the Republicans. Then we had to try to process that, WHY didn't they do it? The last few years have been one hell of an education.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You get huge rate increases in state with the already-most-expensive health care, in the country with the already-most-expensive health care. my friend's small Mass company just got notice that their health insurance is going up 23% for the same coverage."
...on earth does this have to do with Obamacare?
"This. Is. Bullshit."
Yup, that claim is.
"We. Are. Stupid."
Speak for yourself.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Wouldn't it be nice if ObamaRomneyHeritageCare went after the real problems - medical costs - rather than being a scheme to simply subsidize the premiums of lower-income people?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024415004
Facts, try them on for size.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)From your cited article:
"The main reason that Obamacare plans are more affordable on a month-to-month basis is that the health law extends tax credits to Americans who have incomes between the poverty level and four times the poverty level. Early numbers indicate that over 80 percent of Americans buying plans qualify for some sort of subsidy, with the poorest Americans paying less than $100 per month in premiums."
And who pays those subsidies... I think we both know.
tridim
(45,358 posts)You're just making it up.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Perhaps you should notify ProSense that she's spraying BS on the Internet.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Or ever did.
You, on the other hand...
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Amazing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You might want to try them sometime. You are presented with a quote from her article and all you do is disparage Manny.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Shecky Green will be at the Comedy Pouch in Bumblefuck, Alabama next month. Be sure and tip your waitstaff!
NealK
(6,530 posts)Please. talk. slower. so. he. can. understand. 
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)My best friend (wealthy enough to retire at 48 and is now 52) saving $8000, my brother in law is saving $12000 in premiums covering his law firm. Neither one is getting any subsidies. Speak for yourself - the ACA is working for the vast majority.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It was her cited article that made the claim.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It was YOU that claimed the only way people are making out cheaper is because of subsidies. Just admit you're wrong.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Check ProSense's post, ferchrissakes.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
And a Merry to you too!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)typed this: And what makes them cheaper? Subsidies: Since I've already given you two examples of people who are paying less without subsidies that would still make you WRONG. Do you believe every study that comes out to be gospel truth? How about all those fox news clowns that came up with 3 people who are getting hurt?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for the subsidies? Could it be that Medicaid, once operated by the Government at an overhead cost of 3%, meaning most of it went to Health CARE, now has to pass through the hands of Private Insurance companies, and on the way through those hands, at least 20% is removed for profit right into their pockets?? That means, at least 17% of what USED to go to HC for the needy, is now going into the pockets of the Private Ins Corps who are merely middlemen, they provide NO actual HC. We don't need them, they are extremely costly, but this is where we are, for now.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)So I have no idea why you jumped in with information already well known.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)all this is about. Yet another Public Fund transfer into Private hands. They've (the right wingers who've been trying for decades to make these transfers with all Public Funds) have made major progress over the past number years and are succeeding now with the Public School Funds going into private hands, with SS funds, going into private hands, and with Medicaid/HC funds going into useless private hands.
What is astounding is that any Democrat would in any way try to defend these blatant tactics to confiscate all public funds FOR PROFITEERING, useless as far as serving the people, Big Giant Corporations so they can stuff their offshore accounts with even more money.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)seriously?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)At the expense of the tax payer...as the insurance company rakes in more from the subsidies and people forced to buy their product...and lowers the cost for the wealthy enough to retire at 48...
We should be so happy and proud...the redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top is such a good thing.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)4 years ago, before the ACA. BIL's law firm was finally able to cover their employees (all of whom are not wealthy) under the ACA. HR told me our company (200 employees, most in US) is saving tens of thousands. So what are you babbling about?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)They make enough to afford insurance and are not the vast majority despite what you may believe.
The vast majority live from paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford even 100 bucks a month...but they are going to have to pay it anyway...but the taxpayers will have to pay the insurance companies the rest...and this increase in profits will reduce the cost to those who do not live paycheck to paycheck and have 401k savings and a portfolio in the market, and can retire and live the good life.
Well good for them...but for the majority not so much.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Do you realize they're not all lawyers? Paralegals, administrative support, receptionist - hardly able to afford health insurance no matter what. While I'm a huge fan of single payer, the ACA is certainly better than what we had before and those trying to claim that everybody is paying more are simply liars.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And had to wonder where you would get the money to fill your car with gas so you could go to work?
Or whether to pay the eclectic bill or the gas bill this month or cut back on food?
Well in this world today that is the case for millions of people who work at shitty jobs with shitty pay, and now like it or not, they will have to buy insurance...and even if it is as little as 100 bucks it will impact their life far more than those working at a law firm.
The real world for millions is not what you think it is.
MineralMan
(150,521 posts)with BCBS of Minnesota costs half what she was paying before. No subsidy at all.
Data points. Put them together and you have information. Use them individually, as you did, and you just have a data point.
blue neen
(12,465 posts)No subsidies.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)aren't you?
By the way...mine increased 40%...and I don't care...I am getting even more for my money AND other Americans will get healthcare too!
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Through my husbands work is significantly less than if we had to purchase the same plan on the exchanges here in CA. We don't qualify for subsidies. Of course, if he lost his job I suppose we would qualify after falling all the way down into poverty.
scorpiogirl
(717 posts)My husband just started a job (finally!) that offers a catastrophic plan with a $7k deductible and 1 included doctor visit per year, nothing more, without meeting the deductible first and then it's 20% coinsurance. The employer pays $750 towards a $1,200+ premium. Oddly enough, this job was advertised as having "full benefits." Joke, meet punchline.
According to Covered CA, we qualify for a $263 subsidy and could get a silver plan for either $668 or $711/mo. I realize there are pre-tax whatevers, but honestly, if it comes down to a couple of hundred dollars at this point to get insurance so my husband can take care of some medical issues he needs looked at, I will make it happen. I say this as a person hopefully about to come off the worst five financial years of my life, barely dodging homeless for the last several months.
BTW, even the platinum plans were around his employers total premium cost, about $1,100 and change, at the top minus the subsidy. His employer is getting ripped off. He doesn't really seem to care enough to look into it.
pnwmom
(110,176 posts)assuming it's not an imaginary friend.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I seem to recall a bunch of "friends" that fox news and the gop trotted out ...
former9thward
(33,424 posts)The ACA does not allow states to set or role back rate increases. It allows states to question rate increases which are above 10%.
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/rate_review_fact_sheet.html
pnwmom
(110,176 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)pnwmom
(110,176 posts)In addition to the review of rate increases, many states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases. Since the passage of the health care reform law, the number of states with this authority increased from 30 to 37, with several states extending existing “prior authority” to new markets.
Examples of how states have used this authority include:
In New Mexico, the state insurance division denied a request from Presbyterian Healthcare for a 9.7 percent rate hike, lowering it to 4.7 percent;
In Connecticut, the state stopped Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the state’s largest insurer, from hiking rates by a proposed 12.9 percent, instead limiting it to a 3.9 percent increase;
In Oregon, the state denied a proposed 22.1 percent rate hike by Regence, limiting it to 12.8 percent.
In New York, the state denied rate increases from Emblem, Oxford, and Aetna that averaged 12.7 percent, instead holding them to an 8.2 percent increase.
In Rhode Island, the state denied rate hikes from United Healthcare of New England ranging from 18 to 20.1 percent, instead seeing them cut to 9.6 to 10.6 percent.
In Pennsylvania, the state held Highmark to rate hikes ranging from 4.9 to 8.3 percent, down from 9.9 percent.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)That is state jurisdiction. If it was ACA all 50 states would have it. We will see what happens to the 23% given that state has had Romney/Obama Care for 20 years or so.
dsc
(53,308 posts)it isn't Obama's fault that not all 50 have used that authority.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)States have always had insurance commissioners with authority to look at rates.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Medicare and Medicaid set rates based on procedure codes. Insurance companies reimburse doctors some % above or below that. Doctors then decide to contract with the insurance co or not. Obamacare has not changed this. I doubt every word of your post
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Are they other than a doctor's union?
Do they set the Medicare reimbursement for each CPT code?
I agree, though, this hasn't changed with ACA. That's part of the problem.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)your talking to a former controller of a medical clinic. You whole line is bull shit. People should consider the source when reading you kind of stuff.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Can we start by agreeing that
1. Docs are generally reimbursed per procedure
2. Procedures are defined (described to insurers) using CPT codes
3. The reimbursement for a given CPT code is based on the RVUs assigned to it (directly based on RVUs for Medicare, fairly correlated for private insurers)
Let me know if you agree with this much.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)As long as Congress can set Conversion Factor, the RVUs could be doubled, the CF would be cut in half and allowables are basically the same.
That's not to say AMA and other groups don't have an impact on Reimbursement rates, but rates have been flat for at least a decade.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Which are all AMA members, most also representing specialties.
The AMA also literally owns the CPT codes, although everyone has to use them by law (and pay the AMA for their use).
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Plus, the RUC only gives an opinion on the physician work component of the total RVU.
It's kind of like CPT codes. The AMA used to have total control of the codes until around 1990. Nowadays, CMS pretty much tells the AMA when they need to change codes. If the AMA balks, CMS says fine, here's a knew HCPCS code that replaces your codes.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Slate: The Fix Is In: The hidden public-private cartel that sets health care prices.
NY Times: The Little-Known Decision-Makers for Medicare Physicians Fees
From the NY Times article:
De jure it is the C.M.S.
De facto, it is the American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee, otherwise known as — you guessed it — the RUC.
...
As it happens, however, the C.M.S. tends to accept the RUC’s recommendations on RVU changes more than 90 percent of the time, which effectively makes the RUC the final arbiter in these matters. I do not believe that slavish acceptance of the RUC’s recommendations is a good thing, if only because the physicians on the RUC do labor under at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
On another note... I deal with this stuff for a living as a member of the medico-industrial complex. (Not that my personal expertise counts for anything here, I know.)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I was also in a unique position to see how CMS rolled over the AMA on that one.
Of course CMS agrees in a lot of cases. Most new RVUs are based upon long standing RVUs of similar procedures. The AMA learned quickly that a concession of 1/100 of an RVU is worth about 35 cents, and is not worth wasting what few silver bullets they have left.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Your OP said doctor unions set rates.
You are so full of it and dishonest too.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I'm right about this.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)And another thing billing rates mean nothing you can bill anything you want it's the reimbursement rate that matters
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)my "Friends" at fox news and on the gop side of the aisle put on display a bunch of their "friends" that experienced rate increases as well ... until someone looked into it.
But let's just take manny's word for it ... he has, after all, been so supportive of this Democratic President, and Democrats in general ... Why would he B.S. about this Democratic initiative?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)of the anti-Obama types.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)My buddy sent me the letter that they got from BCBS. Pretty simple stuff.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)LOL! What does that have to do with Obamacare?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)UncleMuscles
(44 posts)Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Feb 11, 2014, 08:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Yay, ObamaRomneyCare! 23% rate increase!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024479945
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Disgusting attack on ACA. This bashing is getting old.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 11, 2014, 08:23 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It might be a bit over the top, but not so far over the top as to mandate banning; the core argument being made is certainly defensible. El_Bryanto
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Truth hurts.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm with Manny on this one.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Post was fine, until the end when the OP calls DUers (and Americans, in general, I believe) "stupid". That type of insult does not encourage a fruitful debate or dialogue.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing outside TOS. Poster is entitled to present his or her facts and opinion. Anyone who disagrees can state why.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)At least two-thirds of the jury did their job!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Tue Feb 11, 2014, 07:44 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Does ObamaRomneyHeritageCare cut costs to consumers over the long haul?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4479998
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"ObamaRomneyHeritageCare" is a bullshit description for the ACA, a program that has helped millions of Americans. This is nothing more than bashing from Manny. Please hide his nonsense.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Feb 11, 2014, 07:50 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Manny has the right to express his/her opinion whether it is right or wrong
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A bullshit alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A good law should be strong enough to withstand MannyGoldstein's criticism. No violation of TOS has occurred here as far as I am aware.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an entirely apt description of its history. If you have a problem with it, respond. Utterly frivolous alert.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I am not loved.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Lotta mental prissiness stalking these hallowed halls.
So did your friend go shopping for something else?
nxylas
(6,440 posts)With one exception, all the voted to hide were given without explanation. Funny that.
snooper2
(30,151 posts) 
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Kinda telling that not a single 'hide' vote I saw explained WHY they selected 'hide'.
Introspection and self-critique are important tools to understanding the self or even the party/platform positions. We should be able to call out stupid actions when appropriate. It's not a bad thing with a rational argument.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
Auggie
(32,817 posts)for essentially the same service (Anthem Blue Cross). Yes, they can't deny us and others coverage. But I feel as if they were making us protect their bottom line because of that.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)They already had just about all of this in place. You can't say that high-cost individuals are the problem, or that community rating is the problem. It's true that incorporating those individuals would drive up rates, but all those people were already covered.
WTF?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Because it *can*.
Laissez-fair health care needs to end.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)MA regulates rate increases, you know.
The only reason why I can imagine that MA costs would increase would be that there were additional coverages mandated in ACA. Is that true?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)And that ACA's mandates are not so different from those of RomneyCare.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)in premiums? Was it because they had artificially been held down in prior years?
I think you need to look at your state regulators for the answer to this, and not automatically blame ACA.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Probably as good as your "understanding" of the 22% Social Security cut that you were sure was coming.
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)$50 if you can find a post saying that magnitude of a cut was coming.
Easy $50, no? Have at it, sport.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)"Only 22% of the average recipient's benefits will be cut when their recommendations fully kick in. That's only a $50,000 lifetime reduction per beneficiary in today's dollars, or $100,000 per couple. "
You're not saying "if", Manny, you're saying "when".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021493159
You can make your $50 donation to Ready For Hillary.
But I fully expect you to find a reason to welch.
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Is what it is.
Off goes the check.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)by posting a picture of the donation receipt?
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Oh my goodness. Now, if only it meant that this OP would stop perpetuating this divisive, poorly thought out foolishness and that his devoted fans would stop tripping over themselves to lap it up.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)It's even more cringing.....
Number23
(24,544 posts)
But that person "knows Manny" and "trusts Manny." Tells you all you need to know, really...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My buddy sent me the letter that they got from BCBS. Pretty simple stuff.
TheMathieu
(456 posts)
livingwagenow
(373 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The US is ranked pretty low in the world, 30-something or 40-something. And the US pays far more than anyone else for that crappy care.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Going for the best possible alternative they could realistically pass. I truly hope we get single payer or at least a public option one of these days. It could only happen at the ballot box.
Springslips
(533 posts)They are moving towards single payer. I don't believe that change can easily come from big, federal government action-- but from States. That is how we are moving on gay marriage and marijuana.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... including dental, optical, hearing aids, nursing homes and mental health services.
Thanks Manny, good post.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The OP is a lame attempt to blame Obamacare for a unsubstantiated claim.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Healthcare suffers from basic unfairness and lot of confusing complexity and basic awfulness that is essentially a cancer on our society.
ACA is like taking aspirin to fix a cancer.
It actually makes the problem worse by forcing people to buy into a bad system based on false values.
Obama and too many Democrats rejected a partial cure when they turned their backs on the Universal Public Option.
That would not have been a cure -- But it would have made a huge difference by giving people an alternative to Pirate Insurance by giving them the choice of Public Coverage with payments based on income (like taxes and SS).
The inconsistencies, higher rates and general confusion -- while Big Insurance continues to reap the profits from our suffering -- wss not an inevitable byproduct of health reform.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)And I am not buying that they really just saw this as a step to single payer, some are muttering that now, for cover. The vultures were waiting for the right time to put this in action and we took the bait like dumb halibuts.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)"The inconsistencies, higher rates and general confusion -- while Big Insurance continues to reap the profits from our suffering -- wss not an inevitable byproduct of health reform."
We did not get health care reform.
The insurance companies got the "reform." They now have millions of new customers by mandate. I am sure that some people benefitted (my "out of pocket" expenses doubled) but the states who refused to expand their Medicaid rolls still ensure that many impoverished people will not get health care. The (non-profit) hospitals are required to "stabilize" the poor but they do not fix their problems.
Here, in Tn., I know a 50 year old, healthy fellow. He fell and tore his ACL. The hospital wrapped his knee and prescribed a brace and crutches. He was employed as a siding installer and a bar-back.
After 3-4 months he has been able to return to his jobs, part-time. Of course this painful injury will always hurt, slow him down and prevent him doing many activities, unless it is surgically repaired. Even if he could get a Dr. to repair this, he has no money to survive while he heals. We had 2 benefits for Ronnie that helped him survive until he could return to these very low paying jobs.
John Mellencamp- Ain't that America...
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I really don't know what to think. There is no doubt in my mind that it will help hundreds of thousands, maybe millions(I personally don't think it is in the millions). There is also no doubt that it will help to line the pockets of private insurance companies. Just about all insurance companies were already working within the margins set out by the ACA.
I think that my biggest problem is that Democrats will have to aggressively fight for the ACA as a great victory for a decade, maybe even longer. It will not be parlayed into something great anytime soon as many suggest. That is not the way politics work, and that is what this is for the people in Washington. They call this a piece of signature legislation for a reason, they must continue to fight for it as if it were some great victory. I truly worry that minus minor tweaks to make unions and corporations happy, this is what we have for the next couple of decades. After all, it's a big deal.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)There are definitely good parts, and there are definitely bad parts, but you can't improve on something unless you admit the original needs improving, and anyone claiming the ACA is less than perfect is immediately shouted down as being a "hater" or a "FUD"er or "ODS" or something equally silly.
I think the balance of it is probably good, but there's a whole lot of room for improving.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That wasn't even done. Not even close.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,566 posts)1.3% per annum since 2010.
Romney care in place in Massachusetts since 2006.
Your friend pays more for insurance, you and he blame Obamacare,
I easily pulled this from the internet via Google. Out of curiosity,how does your friend explain that BCBS was reducing rates by nearly 25% for small businesses and he goes up 23%?
State officials point to the new rates as an example of Massachusetts' success in curbing the growth in health care spending.
It's from Masslive, you can google it yourself.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"However, nine of the 14 insurers who reported their rates said they will increase premiums, generally by between 4 and 5 percent."
I assume the 4-5% is an average of some sort?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)How about some evidence to back up your 23% claim?
Anyone who is paying attention knows that the increase in health care costs has dramatically slowed. It is now below the rate of inflation.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)duh
MineralMan
(150,521 posts)anything I want. He's nice that way.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)...explaining how my health care costs have been cut by roughly 2/3 (which is actually true when you include my lower cost for prescriptions I take every day) will that offset the lousy 23% increase from his buddy?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)doesn't fit the narrative.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)No fair!
Progressive dog
(7,566 posts)of some kind. I meant to provide a link, but couldn't get it to show.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/basic_cost_of_massachusetts_he.html
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,566 posts)recession starts in 2008, Obamacare passes Dec. 2009. Could be coincidence but cost increases waited more than 2 years after start of recession to drop.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)costs in oder to manipulate/maximize returns under the ACA.
In other words, they likely waited for everyone to be forced to buy from them before jacking up the price.
Progressive dog
(7,566 posts)but they haven't jacked up the price yet and the CBO analysis says that Obamacare is a plus that creates jobs, allows employees to choose to work less, and helps control costs.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)If the dollars and cents worked, why the delays? 
Progressive dog
(7,566 posts)cutting medical costs, why would anyone even ask that question? If you have evidence that the small business delay is to hold health care prices lower, the you should present it.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)this is nothing more than flame post.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It's a stepping stone, or, so I hope.
-Laelth
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)
Of course, this happened in MA. Where they already had the same healthcare implementation that just went into effect nationwide. But let's blame it on Obama, cos that's what Manny does!
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)The BOG replaced with "FUDers gonna FUD" apparently.
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)Sorry. I didn't realize Sid posted a similar thing, but I've been posting this response on bullshit posts on facebook for sometime.
This particular post seemed to be, with all the positives floating around about ACA right now, nothing more than FUD. Which, apparently, is 99% of what Manny posts.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)I'm a freelance propaganda artist...
::sigh::
Why is it that every time someone who agrees with certain policies is almost always branded a propagandist? It gets old. Cry wolf enough... I'm sure you know the story.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)It's really rather strange.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)albino65
(484 posts)I love how the ranters and ravers use the typical Republithug tactics of shouting you down when you don't agree. They think if they talk loud enough, it will silence all who oppose. The OP has the right to his opinion, regardless of the deepness of the bullshit. Some here might be better off on the LCD (Libertarian Cave Dwellers) or AU (Anarchy Unlimited) web sites. So now I can add another to the ignore pile.
MineralMan
(150,521 posts)Hearsay anecdotal information. That's not data, Manny. Let's see the details, not just hearsay.
As I said earlier, my wife's health insurance under ACA is half the cost of her previous police. And that's for better coverage. I know that because we compared the policies point-by-point and ran a spreadsheet.
You have something a "friend" told you, and nothing more.
Details or it's not data.
And ObamaRomneyCare? Way to go, Manny! Your goal is revealed, once again.
randome
(34,845 posts)...that likely offers the same benefits, right? Or does he/she not understand how insurance exchanges work?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to the goper "ObamaCare made my rats go up. Shop the exchange? Oh, wait ..." claims.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)from a full time "ObamaRomneyCare" eligibility caseworker. There are winners and losers in this and they aren't who you think they are.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)and forcing you to buy their products will make them behave. I think?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)For that I'm putting you on ignore!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Your OP, I mean.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)WE are dumb and getting dumber. Hams being led to the slaughter.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)of this:
Horrible Bosses
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024480121
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- Unfortunately your message won't make sense to anyone who cannot do this:
[center]
Click pic for further info[/center]
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)But since the data in the OP is bullshit, so is this thread.
anecdotes aren't evidence. For everyone with a 23% increase, there is someone with an equivalent decrease.
The health care premiums of the country in aggregate are showing their smallest increase in a generation.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Without them we'd be left with talking points, +1's, and s
ProSense
(116,464 posts)biased toward small businesses and exempting them?
By Sy Mukherjee
On Monday, the Obama administration once again eased rules requiring large employers to provide their workers basic health benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Last summer, the White House delayed the enforcement of this provision for one year, after some firms said they wouldn’t be ready to expand coverage in 2014. Now, the administration is further delaying the mandate for medium-sized firms and easing requirements for larger ones...companies that have between 50 and 99 employees will have until 2016 to extend insurance to their employees if they don’t already do so. Larger companies with 100 or more workers can avoid paying a fine if they offer health care to at least 70 percent of their workers next year, and cover 95 percent of their workers in 2016.
<...>
Obamacare requires companies with 50 or more workers to provide a basic level of health benefits that cover, on average, at least 60 percent of an employee’s medical costs. Premiums for these plans cannot exceed 9.5 percent of a worker’s annual salary and the coverage must offer a multitude of benefits, such as prescription drugs. Companies that don’t comply with the requirements risk paying a $2,000 per employee fine for every worker after the first 30 workers who isn’t offered a policy.
Advocacy groups noted that the delay would have minimal effect on American firms and the health law’s broader objectives. “The news today that employers with 51-100 employees will not be required to provide insurance to their workers under the new healthcare law until 2016 does not impact the vast majority of small business owners,” said Small Business Majority CEO John Arensmeyer in a statement.
“Ninety-six percent of businesses in this country have fewer than 50 employees. For these employers nothing changes because they were already exempt from the employer responsibility requirements. For businesses with more than 50 employees, 96 percent already offer insurance and we believe will continue to for business reasons. Only the 4 percent of larger employers that do not offer health insurance will be impacted by the delay in the penalty.”
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/11/3275691/obama-administration-eases-employer-mandate/
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)How will the credit make a difference for you?
For tax years 2010 through 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent of premiums paid for small business employers and 25 percent of premiums paid for small tax-exempt employers such as charities.
For tax years beginning in 2014 or later, there will be changes to the credit:
- The maximum credit will increase to 50 percent of premiums paid for small business employers and 35 percent of premiums paid for small tax-exempt employers.
- To be eligible for the credit, a small employer must pay premiums on behalf of employees enrolled in a qualified health plan offered through a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Marketplace.
- The credit will be available to eligible employers for two consecutive taxable years.
Even if you are a small business employer who did not owe tax during the year, you can carry the credit back or forward to other tax years. Also, since the amount of the health insurance premium payments is more than the total credit, eligible small businesses can still claim a business expense deduction for the premiums in excess of the credit. That’s both a credit and a deduction for employee premium payments.
There is good news for small tax-exempt employers too. The credit is refundable, so even if you have no taxable income, you may be eligible to receive the credit as a refund so long as it does not exceed your income tax withholding and Medicare tax liability.
And finally, if you can benefit from the credit this year but forgot to claim it on your tax return, there’s still time to file an amended return.
Click here if you want more examples of how the credit applies in different circumstances.
- more -
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Small-Business-Health-Care-Tax-Credit-for-Small-Employers
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
progressoid
(52,501 posts)
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Just think of how Rich your state will become. Matter of fact, there will be such an influx of cash that they'll probably be handing out twenty dollar bills at the toll booths to make room for it all 
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)whatever will you do when he leaves office? stop your whinging?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)pnwmom
(110,176 posts)It didn't change the rates of insurance for businesses that already had insurance. And rate increases wouldn't be justified -- unless the company didn't cover Essential Benefits. If they didn't, and they do now, then it isn't the "same coverage."
There is nothing new about insurance companies raising rates. They were doing that long before the ACA. But under the ACA, the state can veto excessive rate increases. Your "friend," if he exists, should be contacting his state to ask why this wasn't approved.
Corruption Inc
(1,568 posts)A lot criminals are smart too and have rigged the system. Until they start getting prosecuted, convicted and jailed the U.S. continues to get worse.
On another note, I've always had health insurance through employers but never rubbed it in anybody's face the way the "I've got health insurance now" crowd does. People don't realize how selfish they sound when proudly announcing they got theirs in a corrupted for-profit system, as if nobody else matters as long as they got theirs.
Those people are stupid, selfish and just as corrupt as the criminals that are stealing from us all.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Post removed
11 Bravo
(24,271 posts)it's first words would be neither "Mama" nor "Dada".
No, your cherub would doubtless emerge from the womb decrying "THAT FUCKING OBAMA"!
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Number23
(24,544 posts)I got some ideas (particularly one that swarms like an Army of One into every Manny Goldstein thread to defend his savior from all disagreement) but considering that person is a he, probably not the same person you're talking about.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)We can't have any ideas that go against the profit-motive, now can we? Not even our illustrious president can avoid the temptation of the invisible hand, which really means setting up advantages for the cartelization of the insurance companies.
It's like, if someone just had an idea about how to provide health care for all without the profit incentive. If only those advocates existed. If only we had something called Medicare that could be expanded for all, or something.
Signed,
Furious.
Scott6113
(56 posts)And I pay $595 a month per employee for Tufts HMO. I don't consider that bad. Individual not family coverage. BXBS is the most expensive.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Just to answer that question, yes, many, many people tried to point it out. In fact, airc, doctors tried to have a say in the negotiations before the bill was adapted, to try to warn about what had happened with the same program in Mass, after only three years or so.
I remember reading many articles about the rise in costs due to Romneycare.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)is that what you're saying?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I see they voted to keep it. But let me just say your continued crying of "wolf" only to be proven wrong in the long term has suprisingly little effect on your willingness to continue making such outlandish and unsupported statements.
I find it interesting you are going to the anecdotal evidence route of "I got this friend, see....and Obamacare is going to DESTROY HIM>>>!!!!! ERMEGERDD!!!"
It is funny that you think Obama had any other option at the time in 2009. WHen you are trying to slay a dragon like the health insurance racket or previously when presidents took on big tobacco, the gun lobby, etc.....it takes a lot of work and some intermediate steps.
This is not over. Obamacare is here to stay, and the effort should be on forcing those traitorous GOP to either help fix issues with Obamacare or make so much noise toward them that their constituents vote them out in favor of someone who will do the job.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)fully funded by Obamacare
By Laura K. Grubb, M.D.
The New England Journal of Medicine, April 4, 2013
In May 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation to implement Green Mountain Care (GMC), a single-payer, publicly financed, universal health care system. Vermont's reform law passed 15 months after the historic federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) became law. In passing reforms, Vermont took matters into its own hands and is well ahead of most other states in its efforts to implement federal and state health care reforms by 2014. The Supreme Court decision last June to uphold most of the ACA left many states scrambling, since they had postponed reforms pending the judgment. Although Vermont is a small state, its reform efforts provide valuable lessons for other states in implementing ACA reforms.
<...>
Finally, Vermont policymakers are maximizing federal financing and have projected cost savings. In January 2013, the state released a 156-page financing plan for its single-payer arrangement; the plan outlines federal financing sources and the anticipated generation of savings. Vermont has been awarded more than $250 million in federal funding for its state exchange — the fifth-highest amount among the states, although Vermont has the country's second-smallest state population. “We feel strongly that the exchange is not the answer to all of Vermont's health care problems,” Shumlin remarked, explaining that “the exchange is helpful to Vermont to bring us federal dollars to achieve our single-payer goal.”3 In fact, state exchange development will be 100% federally funded.4
- more -
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/lessons-from-vermonts-health-care-reform
Section 1332 of the health care law:
Why the 1332 Waiver in the Senate Health Reform Bill is the Only Opportunity for State Single Payer Systems Under the Bill
The health care reform bill passed by the Senate requires that all states set up Exchanges through which private insurance companies could sell their plans. Because federal laws preempt state laws, the federal health care reform bill would supplant any state attempt to set up a single payer system in lieu of an Exchange, which by its nature calls for multiple payers to compete. If the Senate bill is enacted, the only opportunity for states to move toward a single payer system is found in Section 1332. This section would allow a state with a plan that meets certain coverage and affordability requirements to waive out of the requirement to set up an Exchange for private insurance companies. Only with such a waiver could a state move in the direction of a single payer system.
- more -
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/state-single-payer-waiver-provisions-in-the-senate-healthcare-bill-legislative-langu
Vermont Delegation and Gov. Shumlin Hail Obama Endorsement of State Health Reform Waiver Legislation
WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 - The Vermont congressional delegation and Gov. Peter Shumlin today hailed President Obama's endorsement of legislation allowing states to provide better health care at a lower cost starting in 2014.
At a meeting of the National Governors Association Monday morning, Obama announced his support for amending the Affordable Care Act to allow states like Vermont to seek a federal waiver to the new law three years earlier than currently allowed. States would be required to design plans that are at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people
Last month Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced in the Senate and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced in the House legislation that would advance the date waivers would be accepted from 2017 to 2014. The three joined Gov. Shumlin at a Montpelier press conference to announce the legislation, which would provide Vermont the flexibility it needs to adopt reforms Shumlin is pursuing.
Leahy said, "This is a wise decision that keeps in focus the goal of continually improving health care in America. I applaud President Obama and Secretary Sebelius for supporting efforts by Vermont and other states to go above and beyond what the Affordable Care Act requires. They know that the federal government does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and innovations by the states will prove - and improve --- the benefits of health insurance reform, on the ground, and in practice. While some in Washington want to turn the clock back and repeal the new health reform law, Vermont and other states want to move ahead. Vermont has already been working hard to improve the state's system of health care, and passage of the delegation's waiver bill will move our state one step closer to that goal."
Sanders said, "At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer approach. I am delighted that President Obama announced today that he will, in fact, support allowing states to innovate with health coverage models sooner rather than later. I worked hard to draft and secure the waiver provision in the health reform law and I am very pleased the president now agrees that we should make it available in 2014 as originally intended. While there is a lot of work to be done, I look forward to working with Sens. Leahy, Wyden, Inouye, Brown and others in the Senate and Rep. Welch and others in the House to get this done as soon as possible."
Welch said, "President Obama's support for allowing states to innovate sooner is a good news for Vermont and all states looking to tailor health care reform to individual states' circumstances. This legislation will give Vermont a green light to lead the nation in providing quality health care at a lower cost. I'm hopeful that Democrats and Republicans alike will support this practical step to give states flexibility to achieve progress their own way."
Shumlin said, "I was excited to learn about this today during a visit to the White House. All along officials from Health and Human Services have expressed a willingness to work with us, as long as we don't compromise standards under the law. I think this is an excellent example of how we can work together to control skyrocketing health care costs and implement meaningful health care reform as soon as possible."
A fact sheet on the delegation's "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=44a664de-8e92-43f4-a871-d26e0b5a252d
"State Leadership in Healthcare Act‟
Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the “Waiver for State Innovation” – allows states to waiver out of some of the requirement of federal health reform if they meet certain standards. The provision in the new law was authored by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and strongly supported by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
The Sanders-Leahy-Welch “State Leadership in Healthcare Act” moves the availability of state waivers from 2017 to 2014. This would allow a state to avoid the expense of setting up an exchange – which is otherwise required in every state in 2014 – only to dismantle it later.
The federal waiver would allow a state to:
a) Collect all the federal funding and use for financing coverage for individuals through a plan designed by and for that state.
b) Coordinates this waiver process with Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP waiver processes that may be required depending on the design of the system. The state
The federal waiver would not allow a state to:
a) Offer lower quality or less affordable care to their residents than would be available in the exchange.
b) Obtain waivers from the health insurance market reforms implemented under the law such as those benefiting ending the use of pre-existing conditions to exclude individuals from coverage or those allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plans longer.
How does the waiver provision of the law work?
Step 1: The state passes a law to provide health insurance to its citizens.
Step 2: The Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of the Treasury review the state law and determine that the plan is:
a) At least as comprehensive as its residents would receive in the exchange;
b) At least as affordable;
c) Deficit neutral to the federal government; and,
d) Covers at least as many people.
Step 3: If the federal government finds that the alternative state system meets these requirements without certain federal rules, states can get a waiver. The state plan could receive waivers from:
a) The section requiring establishment of the exchange
b) The designs for how federal subsidies would have to reduce premiums and co-pays.
c) The employer penalty for providing coverage
d) The individual mandate.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/graphics/011411state_waiver_fact_sheet.pdf
The Affordable Care Act: Supporting State Innovation
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/02/state-innovation02222012a.html
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)into ACA. We did not want to wait until 2017. But the 'Moderate Centrists' insisted that we all pay into their Ponzi for a few years. If it was not for Bernie and a few others that provision would not be there. Glad that it is. But it's there because of activists and elected officials who fought hard to attain it.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Besides all the shouting from the BOG this thread has received to drown out any debate, it would be nice to find some real answers as to the best course to take. My insurance has nearly doubled in the last three years and my ACA plan has deductibles so high and a network so limited I don't know whether it's even usable.
When I signed up for my silver plan, the guy was going over the list of things it didn't cover. Such as seeing a doctor out of state. What? My primary care physician is no longer in the network, so I have to change. All these indicators that what I was actually signing up for was JUNK INSURANCE.
I never use my insurance as I am now very healthy, so getting the highest plan makes no sense (and I can't afford it). But I also travel for my business and life. But my junk insurance doesn't cover me. I assume that soon the insurance companies will be restricting their networks so much, there will be such long waits to see a doctor, you will have to buy supplemental insurance.
So to all the screamers who won't even take a moment to consider what Manny is saying, I have nothing to say. But to any rational people on this board with more information, I would appreciate advice. My sense is that we don't know or understand these plans nor were there many, if any, cost-saving measures put into place. I believe the insurance companies have planted a whole lot of golden eggs inside this law for themselves and their protesting is all kabuki for when we're all signed up. Then the hammer is going to come down in a big, big way.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/11/1276567/-Cartoon-Blaming-Obamacare
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)You have a mouse in your pocket?
Rex
(65,616 posts)I mean...couldn't even go with a normal number like 7%...had to double dipper for 23%! I would merely change insurance companies as all business do or most have more than one insurance company.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)so it is totally true and we are fucking stupid third way corporatist tools and Obama should be impeached.
and yeah, 23 percent. might as well have been 1000 percent.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Paolo123
(297 posts)It's time for single-payer healthcare.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)where is our Public Option?
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)There was a thread here yesterday lamenting the negative comments about the ACA all over the web, and blaming some propaganda effort on social media for the negative attitudes. The polls show majority disapproval as well. More results of propaganda, no doubt.
The reality is that millions have been negatively affected. Plans cancelled (yes, really) despite repeated promises from the president that that would not happen. Rates up big-time for many, despite repeated promises from the president that rates would go down. Certain doctors only on costlier plans, if at all, despite repeated promises from the president that you can keep your doctors. This is the reality people see their friends and family dealing with, and that many themselves are dealing with. As millions more will when the employer mandate is finally allowed to kick in.
What some don't get is this is not some propaganda effort, this is reality. This hits home to millions upon millions. No amount of spin from the WH or the best of the best spinners in media or on DU can alleviate that reality. And that is why support is weak, and the web is full of negativity over the law. As I've said here before, you cannot spin away a reality that hits not close to home, but at home, for so many. There are no unicorns gliding in from the heavens on rainbows.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)even if it comes out of or is republican policy is the bestest thing ever!!!
I agree with this , "This. Is. Bullshit." I disagree with this, "We. Are. Stupid." No, They just fucking think We. Are. Stupid.
I think they are in for a surprise.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Autumn
(48,717 posts) Nowhere in Manny's OP did he say he was "sent" the letter.SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Maybe, next time, read the thread before jumping in.
Sid
Autumn
(48,717 posts)I don't have to read the whole thread, some people I see their name and just skip right over the exchange. Perhaps posters should respond to the post they are referring to. Maybe, next time, read my post before jumping in. OP, Original Post.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
Autumn
(48,717 posts)Usually if I ask a poster a question about something they said, I post my question to their post with their statement in it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)when someone who does read the thread asks questions.
The point is that Manny claims to have this magical letter. I'd like to see it.
And wouldn't you??? Because wouldn't it make up for this subthread, if I actually was proved wrong?
Autumn
(48,717 posts)I imagine if Manny wanted to post it he would have posted it or maybe he just recounted information a friend sent him and doesn't feel like he needs to satisfy your demand for proof. As for myself I would never post anything that someone could use to get information. There are sites that troll DU and have gotten information on several DUers from some innocent little comment and hunted them down and found out names, places of employment and damaged those DUers. Only a fool would post a letter here.
Personally I don't give a shit if someone or does or doesn't post magical poof of their experiences with the ACA. There are plenty of stories both good and bad about it. Different people will experience different things. As for you, an anonymous person on the internet needing to be being proved right or wrong you could be right you could be wrong it don't mean shit to me.
Autumn
(48,717 posts) msanthrope
(37,549 posts)displays of Internet idiocy is when no one reads the thread and asks the OP the same question over and over....
As for posting personal information, I'm sure Manny is technologically adept enough to post without revealing personal information.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
It's OK to just admit that you goofed, you know.
Sid
Autumn
(48,717 posts)Work it all you can. 
Stay warm up there, it's a long cold winter so far.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm going to make a suggestion to you....next time, make sure you read ALL of Manny's posts before rushing to his defense..I always do, because you never know what gems they hold.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)I see some names and I skip over the exchanges. It make my DU experience much more pleasant. It's kind of like an ignore without the ignore. Thanks for your suggestion but I'll pass, there are gems and then there are little piles of crap. I know Manny, I trust Manny. Others
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Autumn
(48,717 posts)If I amused you my life is now complete. Take care of yourself now and enjoy your evening.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/11/1276736/-My-Buddy-Al-Has-Obamacare
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)<...>
According to the Division of Insurance, the average base rate for health insurance premiums in the individual and small group market will increase by 1.9 percent in the first quarter of 2014. That is the third-lowest quarterly increase since mid-2011.
That number does not reflect an across the board trend, but indicates a few insurers posting large decreases in their base rates, while most show modest increases. Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts, the state’s largest insurer, reported a drop of nearly 25 percent, while Boston Medical Center Health Net Plan and Neighborhood Health Plan reported decreases of nearly 10 percent. However, nine of the 14 insurers who reported their rates said they will increase premiums, generally by between 4 and 5 percent.
The modest average increase is consistent with a trend of low single digit increases since mid-2012, following a period of much larger increases. Experts point to different explanations: lower cost contracts between insurers and providers; less use of health care services; new plans offered by insurers that are cheaper but have higher deductibles or co-pays or limited networks; and attempts by insurers to move away from a fee-for-service payment model.
- more -
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/basic_cost_of_massachusetts_he.html
You really should tell your friend to contact the MA "Division of Insurance."
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Subsidized, and if you paid attention, you would realize that means they are paid for by the Big Tooth and Body Fairy in the sky!
So who cares? What possible difference could it make?
And who cares that many of our local hospitals' main policies are tremendously harmful to our health?
Or that the deductibles a person has to pay before getting care are equally horrendous, and are NOT subsidized?
It is all good, because Kaiser's motto is "Thrive!"
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)We have watched as the corporate talking points have shifted from promising huge decreases in premiums, to arguing that Obama promised only reductions in increases (I know *you* didn't say that, but it's a frequent talking point here and why I keep the below video handy: to correct the constant rewriting of history)...and now to focusing on the subsidies.
Obama vowed repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that premiums would fall drastically as a result of the ACA. Exactly the opposite has occurred, just as many of us warned at the time.
Health Premiums Up by $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/health-premiums-3-065-obama-224300715.html
Even if everyone who needs subsidies got them (which they don't), the subsidies mask the real problem.
The real problem is that the ACA entrenches the obscene, profit-driven middleman structure of health insurance into our health care system without any serious cost controls. By the design of the corporatists who created it, it guarantees outrageous profits to the insurance companies for merely standing between us and our doctors. The most important point is that ALL OF US end up paying the subsidies TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES for these still obscenely expensive plans instead of what SHOULD have happened, which was to eliminate the profitmongering from the system and focus instead on real cost controls.
ACA does not even begin to attempt to solve the problem that it was cynically named to suggest it would. It does not fix the problem of corporate, bloodsucking middlemen or spiraling costs. Rather, it entrenches those middlemen into the system while providing them a captive market and guaranteed profits.
Which makes sense, because they helped write it.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)That's the only time I remember him saying that. I had that bookmarked at old DU but it's gone.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I just did a quick search and couldn't find a video anywhere. I'm guessing that was wording they regretted.
Autumn
(48,717 posts)I searched and couldn't find it. Oh well.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
OwnedByCats
(805 posts)are getting subsidies, some quite significant. A lot of people are getting subsidies, anyone who makes under a certain amount and those examples are plenty. If your employer plan is cheaper than the exchange and any subsidies you might get, good for you. Just know that this does not mean everybody finds that.... for those that think subsidies aren't playing a big roll. Those subsidies have to get paid somehow and for how long can we afford it?
And yes, some people are getting hit with higher premiums. It's great the gov is helping some people, but this shouldn't have been the way. It's welfare to the ins companies and we still end up with a product that will never be as good as for example, the NHS in the UK. Our government is paying companies who make a profit, they aren't paying for direct care like a national system who is not making a profit. While right now it's alleviating costs for some people, it's going to cost us more in the future somehow- this going to snowball. Single payer is the most cost efficient way to pay for health care and that is something very badly needed. Every other developed country has it.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)So there is a political factor at play here too.
REP
(21,691 posts)I'm a disabled retiree of a terrible, terrible company. A huge one. Due to a long series of fucku ps by them and the SSA, I am acutely aware of what my insurance rates - group rates, no less - have been, as providing my payment history has been part of this fun fun journey.
Before the ACA, my contribution increased between 40% and 100% each year for the Medicare or non-Medicare plan for covering just me.
After the ACA, it's almost 100% (double last year's, from $73 to $135) year for my Medicare Advantage Group Plan. The non-Medicare plan increased 38% ($223 to $309).
Autumn
(48,717 posts)
My Husband starts Medicare in about 8 months. My daughter and Son in Law took care of all the calls and paperwork for ACA to get me signed up. Got a nice little plan and a nice subsidy so we will see how that works out. REP
(21,691 posts)I have a VERY good plan, though. And it doesn't go up this much every year; and since I was on the $309 plan because of a bunch of fuckups, the $134 is a relief!
Autumn
(48,717 posts)