Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:53 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
Screw the ACA
#1. It's not health care, it's insurance
#2. It's expensive #3. Last year I qualified under Federal guidelines for Medicaid, but my State didn't expand so I couldn't receive it and went uninsured #4. I probably will go uninsured for 2015, last week I viewed plans and the cheapest would cost me $3600 for the premium plus another $3000 deductible, so $6600 I give the insurance company before it pays for anything, that's about 25% of my gross income and about 40% of my net income. #5. The ACA website pages aren't loading. I don't want insurance, I want health care. I want what my 84 year old mom has, Medicare. I want a one payer system for everyone under 65. You shouldn't have to qualify for health care based on income, age, sex and pre-existing conditions. I have seen a few plans out there asking the question(s) about health issues.
|
224 replies, 17557 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | OP |
Cali_Democrat | Nov 2014 | #1 | |
tooeyeten | Nov 2014 | #61 | |
Daemonaquila | Nov 2014 | #155 | |
Wella | Nov 2014 | #2 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #6 | |
Scootaloo | Nov 2014 | #9 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #12 | |
Cali_Democrat | Nov 2014 | #19 | |
Scootaloo | Nov 2014 | #169 | |
Cali_Democrat | Nov 2014 | #173 | |
DonCoquixote | Nov 2014 | #176 | |
Wella | Nov 2014 | #10 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #16 | |
LostOne4Ever | Nov 2014 | #59 | |
SidDithers | Nov 2014 | #101 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #126 | |
Bobbie Jo | Nov 2014 | #132 | |
Wella | Nov 2014 | #172 | |
SidDithers | Nov 2014 | #179 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #211 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #205 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #212 | |
busterbrown | Nov 2014 | #39 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #72 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #90 | |
Bandit | Nov 2014 | #93 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #94 | |
HERVEPA | Nov 2014 | #136 | |
Sheepshank | Nov 2014 | #180 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #31 | |
obxhead | Nov 2014 | #65 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #97 | |
TheKentuckian | Nov 2014 | #149 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #218 | |
obxhead | Nov 2014 | #193 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #219 | |
bvar22 | Nov 2014 | #194 | |
Hoyt | Nov 2014 | #201 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #216 | |
Rex | Nov 2014 | #3 | |
bravenak | Nov 2014 | #36 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #4 | |
Wella | Nov 2014 | #11 | |
Drunken Irishman | Nov 2014 | #14 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #20 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #24 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #27 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #38 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #42 | |
progressoid | Nov 2014 | #116 | |
MineralMan | Nov 2014 | #127 | |
Lex | Nov 2014 | #200 | |
Drunken Irishman | Nov 2014 | #49 | |
brush | Nov 2014 | #88 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #21 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #214 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #77 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #215 | |
Cha | Nov 2014 | #213 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #17 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #124 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #32 | |
busterbrown | Nov 2014 | #43 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #69 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #123 | |
Hoyt | Nov 2014 | #5 | |
Cali_Democrat | Nov 2014 | #7 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #22 | |
geek tragedy | Nov 2014 | #25 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #28 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #34 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #41 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #45 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #57 | |
brush | Nov 2014 | #89 | |
B Calm | Nov 2014 | #105 | |
brush | Nov 2014 | #120 | |
B Calm | Nov 2014 | #161 | |
brush | Nov 2014 | #168 | |
Sunlei | Nov 2014 | #146 | |
B Calm | Nov 2014 | #151 | |
Sunlei | Nov 2014 | #153 | |
B Calm | Nov 2014 | #154 | |
Sunlei | Nov 2014 | #163 | |
busterbrown | Nov 2014 | #44 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #46 | |
busterbrown | Nov 2014 | #52 | |
Cali_Democrat | Nov 2014 | #35 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #40 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #80 | |
stillwaiting | Nov 2014 | #91 | |
Capt. Obvious | Nov 2014 | #166 | |
displacedtexan | Nov 2014 | #121 | |
progressoid | Nov 2014 | #119 | |
Cali_Democrat | Nov 2014 | #145 | |
bluestateguy | Nov 2014 | #8 | |
Drunken Irishman | Nov 2014 | #15 | |
bluestateguy | Nov 2014 | #18 | |
Mojorabbit | Nov 2014 | #33 | |
yeoman6987 | Nov 2014 | #95 | |
bornskeptic | Nov 2014 | #115 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #37 | |
Drunken Irishman | Nov 2014 | #48 | |
HockeyMom | Nov 2014 | #107 | |
Autumn | Nov 2014 | #117 | |
Doctor_J | Nov 2014 | #113 | |
LostInAnomie | Nov 2014 | #13 | |
simak | Nov 2014 | #99 | |
truebluegreen | Nov 2014 | #135 | |
Sheepshank | Nov 2014 | #187 | |
truebluegreen | Nov 2014 | #202 | |
Sheepshank | Nov 2014 | #203 | |
nationalize the fed | Nov 2014 | #23 | |
jeff47 | Nov 2014 | #111 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #26 | |
Ykcutnek | Nov 2014 | #29 | |
elleng | Nov 2014 | #30 | |
minivan2 | Nov 2014 | #47 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #50 | |
Enthusiast | Nov 2014 | #62 | |
Recursion | Nov 2014 | #64 | |
Enthusiast | Nov 2014 | #66 | |
Hoyt | Nov 2014 | #76 | |
Enthusiast | Nov 2014 | #78 | |
Hoyt | Nov 2014 | #81 | |
Enthusiast | Nov 2014 | #82 | |
tridim | Nov 2014 | #106 | |
Enthusiast | Nov 2014 | #195 | |
tridim | Nov 2014 | #197 | |
treestar | Nov 2014 | #220 | |
bravenak | Nov 2014 | #51 | |
A Simple Game | Nov 2014 | #87 | |
pnwmom | Nov 2014 | #53 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #73 | |
MoonchildCA | Nov 2014 | #54 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #58 | |
LibDemAlways | Nov 2014 | #55 | |
KingCharlemagne | Nov 2014 | #171 | |
SheilaT | Nov 2014 | #56 | |
JDPriestly | Nov 2014 | #60 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #75 | |
ColesCountyDem | Nov 2014 | #63 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #79 | |
ColesCountyDem | Nov 2014 | #83 | |
Sheepshank | Nov 2014 | #182 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #185 | |
Sheepshank | Nov 2014 | #188 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #189 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #129 | |
ColesCountyDem | Nov 2014 | #150 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #181 | |
ColesCountyDem | Nov 2014 | #192 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #208 | |
ColesCountyDem | Nov 2014 | #217 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #221 | |
ColesCountyDem | Nov 2014 | #222 | |
noiretextatique | Nov 2014 | #196 | |
Brigid | Nov 2014 | #67 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #71 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #68 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #138 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #144 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #183 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #186 | |
Politicalboi | Nov 2014 | #70 | |
still_one | Nov 2014 | #74 | |
liberal N proud | Nov 2014 | #84 | |
WinkyDink | Nov 2014 | #85 | |
Man from Pickens | Nov 2014 | #86 | |
egduj | Nov 2014 | #92 | |
sendero | Nov 2014 | #100 | |
workinclasszero | Nov 2014 | #96 | |
alarimer | Nov 2014 | #98 | |
jpak | Nov 2014 | #102 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #110 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #128 | |
Tuesday Afternoon | Nov 2014 | #103 | |
JoePhilly | Nov 2014 | #104 | |
Autumn | Nov 2014 | #118 | |
JoePhilly | Nov 2014 | #170 | |
Autumn | Nov 2014 | #174 | |
Bettie | Nov 2014 | #108 | |
Capt. Obvious | Nov 2014 | #109 | |
Rex | Nov 2014 | #130 | |
Capt. Obvious | Nov 2014 | #131 | |
Rex | Nov 2014 | #133 | |
Doctor_J | Nov 2014 | #112 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #114 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #125 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #134 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #137 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #143 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #165 | |
DrDan | Nov 2014 | #190 | |
Dragonfli | Nov 2014 | #204 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #223 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #122 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #142 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #184 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #191 | |
L0oniX | Nov 2014 | #209 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #210 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #139 | |
riqster | Nov 2014 | #140 | |
Sunlei | Nov 2014 | #141 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #147 | |
Trajan | Nov 2014 | #148 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #157 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #159 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #167 | |
B Calm | Nov 2014 | #206 | |
Martin Eden | Nov 2014 | #152 | |
woo me with science | Nov 2014 | #156 | |
frazzled | Nov 2014 | #158 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #160 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #162 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #199 | |
moriah | Nov 2014 | #207 | |
frazzled | Nov 2014 | #164 | |
mrmpa | Nov 2014 | #198 | |
McCamy Taylor | Nov 2014 | #175 | |
Sheepshank | Nov 2014 | #177 | |
pa28 | Nov 2014 | #178 | |
Motown_Johnny | Nov 2014 | #224 |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:55 AM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
1. So what about the folks with pre-existing conditions that never had insurane prior to the ACA?
Screw 'em?
You want single payer health care? Good luck getting that through the next Congress. Maybe the Republicans will have a change of heart. |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #1)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:18 AM
tooeyeten (1,074 posts)
61. Doubtful
Republicans have a change of heart? First they must have one, they don't.
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #1)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:41 PM
Daemonaquila (1,712 posts)
155. It won't do most of them a damned bit of good.
Oh, sure - they can get a plan. But if the only plan they can afford is one with such high deductibles that they might as well be paying out of pocket, it does them no good at all. This is the reality in my state, and many other where there was no medicaid expansion. People are staying uninsured and relying on charity clinics just like they were before because they can't afford to pay out of pocket for medical care, and they sure as hell can't afford to pay out of pocket for medical care to meet an astronomical deductible AND pay premiums (even subsidized) for the privilege on top of that.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:56 AM
Wella (1,827 posts)
2. The ACA was a bait and switch for those of us who wanted single payer
And still do.
|
Response to Wella (Reply #2)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:03 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
6. No, it was the largest expansion of the social safety net in decades.
Single payer was never a possibility.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:09 AM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
9. It can be both
The ACA is something. Something is more than nothing, which is what we had before. But "something" does not mean the same thing as "enough."
If it's enough for you, hey fine, squat there and enjoy it. Just do me a favor and stop striving to get i nthe way of people who want something better to come from it, kay? |
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #9)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:12 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
12. Most certainly not enough.
Sadly, as good as we are going to have for at least a decade, on a national level.
Real action is on the state level for improvements. |
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #9)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:19 AM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
19. So let's make it better
When the new Congress is sworn in, let's make them make it better.
Let me know if you need Boehner and McConnell's email addresses. Surely they will strive to better the ACA.... |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #19)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:26 PM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
169. I'm sure you correspond with them frequently.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #169)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:36 PM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
173. Ya...we're pen pals
![]() |
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #9)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:50 PM
DonCoquixote (13,487 posts)
176. more like
we want America to graduate from High School at least, if not college. We cannot stop, however, ACA was seventh grade. As much as we would love to skip seventh grade, it is prgressto wards the goal.
Key words, towards the GOAL, not a ogal in and of itself, as no one wants our kids to graudaate with a 7th grade education. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:10 AM
Wella (1,827 posts)
10. No, it was not an expansion of the safety net: it was an expansion of the insurance market
It was a big wet kiss to the insurance industry. Period.
|
Response to Wella (Reply #10)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:16 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
16. That is a blatant lie on your part.
Blatant. Not a differing opinion. A lie.
Millions were covered under the Medicaid expansion. http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/how-is-the-aca-impacting-medicaid-enrollment/ That fact alone makes your idiotic claim a Palin-level lie. Please do not lie. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #16)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:02 AM
LostOne4Ever (8,824 posts)
59. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1) [div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]On Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
That is a blatant lie on your part. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5827968 REASON FOR ALERT This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. ALERTER'S COMMENTS I think we can discuss this without using personal attacks. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:59 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: I think we can discuss this without using personal attacks. Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT Explanation: No explanation given Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: No explanation given Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: sometimes lies need to be exposed for what they are Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE Explanation: The poster is attacking the claim, not the person. Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE 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. Edit: [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]For the record, I was juror # 6[/font] |
Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #59)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:29 AM
SidDithers (44,228 posts)
101. Sometimes the jury gets it right...nt
Sid
|
Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #59)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:14 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
126. Sometimes the jury gets it wrong.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #126)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:23 PM
Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)
132. Not in this case
Juror #5 summed it up nicely.
|
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #132)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:33 PM
Wella (1,827 posts)
172. Juror 5 blatantly lied: For the record, I did not alert
I am very aware of what the ACA was and wasn't.
|
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #132)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:05 PM
SidDithers (44,228 posts)
179. Yup....
![]() Sid |
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #132)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 03:46 AM
Cha (283,912 posts)
211. Yes, Juror # 5 got it right.. I don't care how many times the poster goes around DU repeating it.
Response to LostOne4Ever (Reply #59)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:21 PM
Cha (283,912 posts)
205. I agree with Juror #5.. If it's a Lie it needs to be Exposed.. thanks, geek and LostOne4Ever.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #16)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 03:47 AM
Cha (283,912 posts)
212. Yeah, the poster can't wrap their head around the fact that Millions are covered for Free and
getting Health Insurance for the first time thanks to Obamacare.
And, there's No Denying Insurance for Pre-Existing Conditions.. no matter how many times the poster invokes a stupid "wet kiss". |
Response to Wella (Reply #10)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:46 AM
busterbrown (8,515 posts)
39. Oh so sorry that it didn’t work out for you..
Wanna tell us what republican governed state do you live in?
In my state over 600,000 now have expanded medicaid health insurance because of the ACA. You sit there and spew bullshit about the ACA. What action did you take before the ACA became law. What kind of choices did you have then? People like you make me ill... The ACA is a first small step in fixing a horrible situation but it is certainly better than anything that was available before Obamacare.. Because Republicans have backed For Profit Health Insurance Companies in a huge way for decades.. Perhaps you should vent your anger at them rather than going after a first step solution.. |
Response to busterbrown (Reply #39)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:42 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
72. How do you know he didn't vote, but being in a red state, the math just doesn't come out well for
progressives or Democrats for that matter
While it may be his state legislatures fault, and the Supreme Court for allowing states to skip out of the Medicaid expansion, saying it is his fault is way out of line If he didn't vote you might have a point, but we do not know that |
Response to busterbrown (Reply #39)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:10 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
90. Third Way viper Terry McAuliffe, governor of Blue State, Virginia,
Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1) just broke his promise to expand Medicaid unilaterally for 400,0000. Only 25,000 will be eligible. Of course, his promise was hugely publicized, but the reversal was quietly on the back pages.
Lots of Third Way Kabuki in Virginia. Lots of lies. DUers have been following and posting about his lies and betrayals for a long time. Virginia was never going to get real Medicaid expansion with this DLC corporate snake in office. Those of us who have followed McAuliffe's career from the time he was the head of the DLC predicted exactly what he would do when he got into office. I said on the night he was elected that he would break his promises and the major expansion would never materialize. And I was right. His campaign and term *began* with a bald-faced lie. He campaigned on very specific promises including pushing the expansion by writing it into his own budget. As soon as he got into office, he changed his mind and decided that a letter to Republicans, with a plea for them to work with him on legislation instead, would suffice. Yes, he lied. And it has been Third Way Kabuki ever since: McAuliffe abandons promise; 25,000 rather than 400,000 will get medical insurance
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-medicaid_n_5785640.html Terry McAuliffe: 'If It's The Last Thing I Do,' I'm Going To Fight For Medicaid Expansion http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-medicaid-expansion_n_4971132.html
Terry McAuliffe is a Third Way liar http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4184956 Yes, Terry McAuliffe has a sleazy as hell financial history. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023826799 Terry McAuliffe to VA GLBT: FU! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/04/1282164/-Terry-McAuliffe-to-VA-LGBT-F-U Terry McAuliffe reappoints Mr. VA Mandatory Transvaginal Ultrasound http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024184917 With contrived nastiness perfectly typical of the Third Way messaging tactics on this board, you wrote, "People like you make me ill." Well, what makes all of us ill is the trading away of people's futures and of democracy itself by corporate vipers who have purchased their way into the government of this nation. The slimy use of propaganda-based manipulation of those they are exploiting is just the cherry on top. A while back I would have mocked the talking points you are repeating here for "inadvertently" exposing the Third Way's contempt for Americans rather than defending the Third Way....but I now believe that the relentless campaign by corporate Democrats to insult and alienate the base and depress turnout for Democrats is wholly deliberate: We misunderstand corporate politicians when we assume winning is always their goal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5824859 |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #90)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:45 AM
Bandit (21,475 posts)
93. Medicare and Medicaid are two seperate things, you seem to be confused
I doubt he ever said he would expand Medicare. Medicare is for people over 65 years old. It is entirely Federal and no state Governor can expand it.
|
Response to Bandit (Reply #93)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:50 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
94. Fixed it. Haven't had my coffee yet.
No, not confused. Just very tired of Third Way lies. |
Response to Wella (Reply #10)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:28 PM
HERVEPA (6,107 posts)
136. Did it ever occur to you it could be both????
Response to Wella (Reply #10)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:05 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
180. Of course it was....stop pretending otherwise
without the federl ACA mandate, how many insurance companies would permit kids to stay on their parents insurance until age 26? How many would die without insurance because of a preexisting condition? You don't consider those safety nets?
wow. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:32 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
31. And it's the first part of the safety net to be gradual rather than all or nothing.
Before it, you were covered if you were very poor by Medicaid, or doing very well by health insurance if you could afford it.
Now if you make too much for Medicaid, but not enough to buy a policy or only a very high deductible, you can via the subsidies be taken care of as well as the rich or middle class and the very poor. At least in blue states that want it to work. |
Response to treestar (Reply #31)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:51 AM
obxhead (8,434 posts)
65. as long as you work for a company with less than 50 people.
Over 50 employees and your stuck with whatever shit insurance they offer, or paying the full premium on the exchange.
|
Response to obxhead (Reply #65)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:11 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
97. If you are paying the full premium if you can afford it
that's improvement, since then it's not tied to the job.
And not every employer has shitty coverage. We don't have to assume that. Most don't, or people would support the ACA a lot more. Most people have good enough coverage through work that the ACA doesn't affect them, so they can "disapprove" of it easily. |
Response to treestar (Reply #97)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:10 PM
TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)
149. Why is it that you deem one person can afford it and another who isn't offered insurance
at all cannot when they make the same because that is exactly what you declared.
|
Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #149)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:27 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
218. HUH? Whether one can afford it is determined by the numbers the federal government
adopted in the law, which they base on studies, just like they have studies for child support, etc. They determined if you could "afford it." A lot of people won't agree with that number because they want to spend money on other things. In a single payer system, they'd complain about the taxes, too.
It's a big benefit to untie health insurance from employment. Then people have more freedom to change jobs. COBRA is very expensive. And the option of self employment will be increased. |
Response to treestar (Reply #97)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:07 PM
obxhead (8,434 posts)
193. The company I work for has shit insurance.
Sadly, I can barely afford it, much less the full non subsidised better plans from the exchange.
Additionally using that shit insurance is nearly impossible with current finances. Sure the aca has helped people, but not nearly enough of us and not nearly enough. It has tremendously helped the profits of the insurance giants though, but they wrote the damn thing for the most part. |
Response to obxhead (Reply #193)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:30 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
219. the insurance company is involved either way
And that employer's insurance was "shitty" before the ACA. If you really aren't allowed to use the ACA if your employer has insurance for you, blame the people so afraid of "change" that they couldn't stomach having to buy it on their own - they wanted things to stay the same. They felt safe against losing their job apparently. But at least if they do lose their job, they can go to the ACA rather than have to pay for the shitty plan via COBRA or go uncovered.
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:33 PM
bvar22 (39,909 posts)
194. A system that forces citizens to purchase "insurance" from For Profit private vendors....
...and subsidizes these For Profit private vendors with BILLIONS from the Public Treasury
is NOT part of a Social Safety Net. A National Non-Profit Public Option (or Medicare for All) would be part of a Social Safety net. See the difference? |
Response to bvar22 (Reply #194)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:20 PM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
201. Not really. Medicare is primarily administered by insurance companies. And
30% of Medicare beneficiaries choose private insurance plans called Medicare Advantage. Most of the rest have some kind of supplement, again private insurance. Medicare for all would still be expensive, even if we get rid of insurance companies.
Insurance companies are a just part of the problem - until providers and consumers change, this stuff ain't gonna get much better. If you cut insurers out completely, you wouldn't save enough to cheer. I do agree there are advantages to having just one payer to deal with, but it will take time to see the results. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 05:34 AM
Cha (283,912 posts)
216. Bernie Sanders on Obamacare today.."Republicans Are Getting Very Nervous About Obamacare’s Success"
They're not the only ones..
Sen. Bernie Sanders explained on MSNBC that Republicans are very nervous about the success of Obamacare, because the ACA proves their ideology that the government can’t help people wrong. MOre http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/17/bernie-sanders-republicans-nervous-obamacare.html Senator Sanders believes Obamacare/ACA is actually helping people.. oooops. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:02 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
4. So of course you bash the ACA instead of your own
state's failure to expand Medicaid.
Note that Medicaid wasn't expanded everywhere because the Supreme Court rewrote the statute. But hey, screw those people it is helping, right? |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:11 AM
Wella (1,827 posts)
11. Yeah, yell at a guy who can't get insurance to protect your own political feelings
How scummy can you get?
|
Response to Wella (Reply #11)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:15 AM
Drunken Irishman (34,857 posts)
14. How scummy are you?
Millions of people are being helped by the ACA and you'd soon throw those people under the bus because your state didn't expand Medicaid. That's the definition of scummy. Hey, bud, instead of saying 'screw the ACA', how about focusing on the Supreme Court and your local government - who are the reason you don't qualify for Medicaid (it's not the ACA's fault).
|
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:20 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
20. I didn't qualify for medicaid in 2014, not 2015..........
the ACA is not affordable and it's not health care.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #20)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:25 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
24. $3600 annual or monthly premium?
If it's the latter, then you should qualify for a subsidy if not Medicaid.
Also, what is included in your deductible. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:28 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
27. That's annual or $300 a month........
that's the cost after the subsidy.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #27)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:40 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
38. Your numbers are off.
According to your numbers your tax rate is 38%. (25 % of gross and 40% of net means a tax rate of 37.5% )
How are you paying such a high tax rate on income of around $25K? |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #38)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:49 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
42. I'm self employed and I put aside......
about 35% to pay state, federal and local taxes.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #42)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:39 PM
progressoid (47,949 posts)
116. A lot of self-employed get screwed under ACA
And any insurance plan for that matter.
|
Response to progressoid (Reply #116)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:15 PM
MineralMan (145,009 posts)
127. That may be, but not those who already were paying for health insurance.
My wife is an example. She makes too much to qualify for subsidies, and was uninsurable, so she couldn't change insurers. Before ACA, she paid $1000 per month for health insurance. After ACA she paid less than half that for an equivalent policy. She goes to the same doctors under the new policy.
Now, how did we pay that $1000/month? That ate up most of my Social Security payment. That's how. Now, we can pay her health insurance and our mortgage payment from my SS. It was a big boost for us. |
Response to progressoid (Reply #116)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:11 PM
Lex (34,106 posts)
200. Not me. I'm self-employed and the ACA is great
compared to what I was paying for health insurance.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #20)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:08 AM
Drunken Irishman (34,857 posts)
49. It is affordable to millions of people.
Stop with the broad brush statement. Jesus.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #20)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:52 AM
brush (46,906 posts)
88. You don't seem to understand
The ACA is not what's affordable or not. It's an exchange of insurance plans offered FOR HEALTH CARE. There are differing levels of coverage by different companies. Subsidies are offered, paid for by the federal government, on many of the plans that make them quite AFFORDABLE.
The ACA also provides for expansion of Medicaid (actually a form of single-payer) for those with lower incomes in states where the state government accepts it (many red state governors stiffed their own citizens and didn't accept it in hopes that the ACA and Obama would fail). Perhaps you're in one of those red states that have governors and state legislatures that would rather screw their on citizens than help them through supporting the Medicaid expansion provide for with the ACA. |
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:20 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
21. That person is also spreading the lie that
the ACA didn't expand the social safety net.
You know, because that Medicaid thing is totally not part of the safety net. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #21)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:34 AM
Cha (283,912 posts)
214. I thought only rw gov in red states didn't like the ACA Medicaid option? Too much of Safety Net for
Poor People.
![]() |
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:55 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
77. I find that interesting that many are ignoring the fact the it was the Supreme Court that said
states were not obligated to expand Medicaid which is what caused the problem in the first place
|
Response to still_one (Reply #77)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 05:20 AM
Cha (283,912 posts)
215. Thank you for reminding them, still_one.
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 04:05 AM
Cha (283,912 posts)
213. And, bash geek b/c he was asking the OP valid questions.. and it's geek who's "protecting your own
political feelings.."?! Rofl They don't know geek very well.. he'll tell like it is.. no what party it is.
|
Response to Wella (Reply #11)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:18 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
17. Much better than the liars who claim it didn't expand
the social safety net.
Those people are probably working for the Koch brothers. http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/how-is-the-aca-impacting-medicaid-enrollment/ |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #17)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:10 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
124. So you are calling mrmpa a liar. Nice.
Response to Wella (Reply #11)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:33 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
32. well that's the pot calling the kettle black
why wouldn't it be equally scummy not to care about people now covered by the ACA and wish them back to their old situation, because a red state fails to cooperate?
|
Response to Wella (Reply #11)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:52 AM
busterbrown (8,515 posts)
43. It’s only about you.. Isn’t it?
Its a beginning and it has given insurance to millions who had no hope of any kind before Obama took action.
You’re not one of them so your attitude is ...It all sucks.. Very Helpful.. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:28 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
69. Actually it is both the OPs state, and the Supreme Court which allowed the states not to expand
Medicaid. A team effort, so to speak, to screw those who need it the most
|
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:08 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
123. No. Screw those it is not helping. Thanks for letting us know how much you care about that.
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:02 AM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
5. Sounds like you should be angry at your state for denying you Medicaid under ACA.
Had your state not stood in the way, sounds like you would have full coverage under Medicaid, at very little cost to you.
With that said, I agree with single payer. But, it won't be cheap either. Hope you find something that works for you, or your state suddenly starts caring about folks in your situation. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:07 AM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
7. "but my State didn't expand so I couldn't receive it and went uninsured"
Well...why did your state vote for people that denied you Medicaid expansion?
There's the problem....right there. Look in the mirror. |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #7)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:22 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
22. WTF..........
I did not vote for those in this state that did not expand Medicaid That's not the issue, the issue is that the ACA is not about health care, it's about expanding the coffers of insurance companies..
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #22)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:26 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
25. So you think all of those helped by the ACA are just
fictional characters?
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #22)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:29 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
28. So if it continues in the blue states and works out well
that is a precedent to get more people to agree with it or the idea the government being involved is not a disaster.
Plus you are making this all about you. You live in a red state and so can't be helped so people in blue states shouldn't. As to insurance companies, so what? In single payer it would be the government, and that's what is still hard to convince the voters in general to do. And then you'd be claiming the big corrupt government was doing it for the corporatists and the banksters, I'll bet. Somehow I'm sure it would never be enough, because it would be brought about by the Democrats. |
Response to treestar (Reply #28)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:36 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
34. Assumptions, Assumptions.......
I'm in a blue state
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #34)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:49 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
41. Then medicaid has been expanded, and if you make "too much" for it
the ACA subsidy will mean you can get a policy with a lower deductible. It's the one area of the safety net where being not poor "enough" doesn't mean you are back to the wolves in the free market.
|
Response to treestar (Reply #41)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:59 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
45. Okay I am in a blue state.........also
it's not affordable, The deductibles are on the bronze plans. You have to balance the cost of the deductibles with mortgage/rent, food, student loans, transportation, etc. WTF is one supposed to do. The costs of the deductibles need to be removed from these plans, that is what is making this expensive. If I have to pay about $6000 before the insurance pays for anything is this affordable, no it is not.
The cost is after my subsidy. |
Response to mrmpa (Reply #45)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:49 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
57. maybe it's a budget problem
because the subsidy is what means you can covered whereas before you could not. Before the ACA I had a high deductible. So I paid the premiums plus the cost of going to the doctor. And even had the deductible been met, would've still paid 20%. It also included some type of dental plan where you got a break, and mail in prescriptions for $10 with a small deductible on that.
There was a screening for cancer program in the state that you could qualify if your deductible was some percentage of your income. It covered Mammograms, pap smears and colonoscopies. I guess if they found something, you were on your own with your high deductible, but at least they would find it for you on the state plan. I suppose other blue states may have had such things. After the ACA I have a low deductible relatively. And a low out of pocket maximum, relatively. I went to the doctor with a small co pay and pay $10 for most prescriptions. I have the dental plan. I pay a bit less than I did for the high deductible non insurance of before. The deductible is such that I don't qualify for the screening plan. I don't get what blue state would leave you in the same situation you were before. It's based on federal studies, so unless you think the banksters are behind those, the amounts should be tentatively reasonable and we can assume WTF am I supposed to do is drive a cheaper car or rent a cheaper place, because health care is not something you forego for more expensive versions of those things. If the money you make is low enough to worry about that, the subsidy should make it better, especially in a blue state. It costs more than nothing you might pay by going uninsured, of course. But then you are uninsured and potentially have to declare bankruptcy in the case of a disaster. Or you go without monitoring things that have to be monitored. |
Response to mrmpa (Reply #45)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:59 AM
brush (46,906 posts)
89. That doesn't sound right
You make $25K a year and can get a subsidy? You need to go back to the exchange and look again.
Something if off with what you're saying. The ACA was designed for people with income levels like you claim to have to get affordable insurance. |
Response to brush (Reply #89)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:43 AM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
105. He say's he is self employed and pays a higher tax rate, there for
he doesn't get a subsidy. I don't know, could that be true?
|
Response to B Calm (Reply #105)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:52 PM
brush (46,906 posts)
120. That's what I mean, it doesn't sound right
He needs to go back to the web site, since he says he's in a blue state, and re-apply. He might have tried it before all the bugs were worked out on the initial roll out.
I understand is working fine in this current enrollment period. |
Response to brush (Reply #120)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:56 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
161. . .
This poster just had a post in the LOUNGE hidden, lol. That's pretty hard to do!
|
Response to B Calm (Reply #161)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:15 PM
brush (46,906 posts)
168. Something is up with him/her
The details he/she describe doesn't ring true to me.
|
Response to B Calm (Reply #105)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:43 PM
Sunlei (22,651 posts)
146. I am self employed in Tx., I get a huge subsidy on my ACA insurance.
also pay the extra 'self employment tax' on every IRS filing.
|
Response to Sunlei (Reply #146)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:19 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
151. Maybe your not making as much money. Isn't 35% tax rate in the top 1%
of wage earners?
|
Response to B Calm (Reply #151)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:36 PM
Sunlei (22,651 posts)
153. poster mentioned 26k a year? I don't know what their self employment business is.
There are large tax deductions one takes for 'business expenses' for self employed. Even the short form method gives a 5k deduction with no need to itemize. I do not pay anywhere near 35% to the IRS.
Not sure if the poster is confused or has a special situation. when I go to the .gov ACA website and input 26k income, there are bronze lvl plans at no/extremely low premium costs. gold plans about 300-400 a month. |
Response to Sunlei (Reply #153)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:41 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
154. I think the poster is misinformed on the ACA. Also the poster needs to pay someone to
do his or her taxes.
|
Response to B Calm (Reply #154)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:59 PM
Sunlei (22,651 posts)
163. I think you're right. A positive is if you pay someone to do taxes, that's a deduction too.
Was surprised to see when President Obama released his tax papers, for his book he used the same exact 'self-employment' IRS form I use! He made his first million off that good book
![]() |
Response to mrmpa (Reply #34)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:55 AM
busterbrown (8,515 posts)
44. You are nothing new around here..
You were so much better off negotiating with the For Profit Insurance Companies before the ACA.. Correct?
Bullshit.. |
Response to busterbrown (Reply #44)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:02 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
46. Before this I was employed...........
being single, I never paid more than $250 a month for either a PPO or HMO. I had copays, no deductibles and that was over a 36 year period of employment.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #46)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:19 AM
busterbrown (8,515 posts)
52. Well thats because your employee paid for your healthcare..
Join the club sir: Now you have to deal with healthcare companies by your lonesome self who only have one interest.. To make a profit off your health needs.. Are you living in a bubble of some sort?
How come you’re not complaining about that.. The ACA is a very small step..Instead of bitching about it, how about supporting it’s intent... To get the profit motive out of Heathcare for our citizens.. |
Response to mrmpa (Reply #22)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:39 AM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
35. Well clearly you didn't do a good job of getting out the vote
Because if you did, you wouldn't have assholes taking away your Medicaid expansion. Try harder next time.
|
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #35)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:48 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
40. oh no, it was that the candidates weren't inspiring enough!
![]() Oh wait, come to think of it, it's because Obama wasn't inspiring enough and didn't get single payer four years ago! ![]() I mean if Obama couldn't get single payer in just two years, then he doesn't deserve the chance to do anything more than the ACA for the rest of his six years in the office! That'll show him! ![]() |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #35)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:03 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
80. easy for us to talk about it in California. Did you vote for Arnold? I didn't either, is that our
fault for not "getting out the vote"?
First of all the only real control anyone has is over themselves as far as voting is concerned. No one can force someone to vote, or who to vote for |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #35)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:23 AM
stillwaiting (3,795 posts)
91. That is SUCH an unbelievably prickish statement.
How could you communicate like that with someone who is upset they don't have access to health care and then BLAME them mostly (or even solely based on your statement) for having assholes in their state's legislature?
That is something that right wing assholes do -- blame the victim. And, people that don't have access to health care because of right-wing asshole conservatives ARE the victim. They can not solely turn their entire state around. Ridiculous and horrible comment you made. Have some empathy. |
Response to stillwaiting (Reply #91)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:13 PM
Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)
166. "That is SUCH an unbelievably prickish statement."
Par for the course.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #22)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:54 PM
displacedtexan (15,692 posts)
121. Then why in the holy hell are repubs trying to repeal it?
"Filling the coffers of insurance companies" is why republicans have tried 6 ways to Sunday to repeal the ACA.
You seem to have confused your talking points. |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #7)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:46 PM
progressoid (47,949 posts)
119. Yeah, blame the states and the Supreme Court for a poorly written law.
Response to progressoid (Reply #119)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:42 PM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
145. Maybe you should organize a letter writing campaign
Start with speaker John Boehner and new Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
Maybe they can pass bill to throw out the ACA and get single payer through once and for all. Perhaps they can succeed where the Democrats in Congress failed. All hail the new Congress. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:07 AM
bluestateguy (44,173 posts)
8. medicare is insurance too
Medicare is a provider of insurance, not health care.
And I just loaded up healthcare.gov just fine. |
Response to bluestateguy (Reply #8)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:16 AM
Drunken Irishman (34,857 posts)
15. That's the irony with the 'Medicare for All' crowd.
If you're on Medicare, you already know you have to buy a supplemental insurance plan. lol
|
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #15)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:19 AM
bluestateguy (44,173 posts)
18. I am for Medicare for all too!
But it is what it is, insurance.
And premium increases would be necessary too. No doubt about it. But there would be no more private health insurance premiums either. |
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #15)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:36 AM
Mojorabbit (16,020 posts)
33. I don't think that is true
I have plain medicare and the drug plan(unless that is what you are talking about) but I do not have any of the supplemental plans(med avantage) because most doctors hate it. I pay my copay out of pocket.
|
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #33)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:57 AM
yeoman6987 (14,449 posts)
95. The reason for the co pay is to pay the
20 percent hospitalization that Medicare does not pay. If you are in the hospital for any length of time, that adds up.
|
Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #33)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:23 PM
bornskeptic (1,330 posts)
115. Supplemental plans are not the same as Medicare Advantage.
Medicare Advantage plans are a privately provided alternative to traditional Medicare. Supplemental (Medigap) plans provide additional coverage for people enrolled in traditional Medicare. Without a Medigap plan, a traditional Medicare enrollee has no limit on out of pocket expenses. I'm 65, but I'm still on my employer provided plan, in which out of pocket costs are limited to around $4000. I expect to retire and go onto Medicaid in three or four years. When I do, I will consider it absolutely essential to have a guaranteed limit on out of pocket costs, with either a Medicare Advantage plan or a Medigap policy.
|
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #15)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:39 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
37. My 84 year old Mother........
is in a Medicare Advantage plan that unlike a supplemental is a 0 cost plan. She pays copays only, no deductibles. No copay is more than $35. If she's hospitalized as she was in June, she pays a copay of $300, and the hospital gives a discount of 10 or 15% if she pays the bill within 10 days. lol
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #37)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:07 AM
Drunken Irishman (34,857 posts)
48. And my mother has to buy a plan that will cost over $100 a month.
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #15)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:04 AM
HockeyMom (14,337 posts)
107. No, you don't
I have had Medicare A and B for a year now. It is not a requirement to BUY a supplemental plan. Original Medicare satisfies the mandate, so even Part B is not required.
If a person chooses to buy more insurance from a private insurance company, that is their choice, and their choice alone. The Feds do not require it. |
Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #15)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:41 PM
Autumn (42,595 posts)
117. One can chose to buy the supplemental insurance plan. lol It's not "mandated"
it's a choice, a choice many can not afford. That's fucking irony for you.
|
Response to bluestateguy (Reply #8)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:15 PM
Doctor_J (36,392 posts)
113. yet somehow comes in at 1/6th of the cost
about 3% overhead versus 20%. And that despite only caring for the really old and sick.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:15 AM
LostInAnomie (14,428 posts)
13. "It's not health care, it's insurance"
Isn't that like saying "This is $5, not a foot long sandwich from Subway"?
|
Response to LostInAnomie (Reply #13)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:22 AM
simak (116 posts)
99. Till you find out that "anesthesia" is like "extra bacon". n/t
Response to LostInAnomie (Reply #13)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:27 PM
truebluegreen (9,033 posts)
135. Unless someone can take his or her $300 per month payment to a health care provider
and receive $300 worth of treatment, no more, no less, then no, health insurance is not to health care what $5 is to a foot-long sandwich from Subway. Could be better, could be worse, but is definitely not the same.
|
Response to truebluegreen (Reply #135)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:48 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
187. That's why HSA works well for some people without chronic illnesses
Last time I looked, HSA's were available on the Exchange.
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #187)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:24 PM
truebluegreen (9,033 posts)
202. And HSAs were available without the exchange, right?
Maybe I lack understanding, but it seems to me HSAs are savings accounts, not insurance.
|
Response to truebluegreen (Reply #202)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:07 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
203. correct...HSA's are available both on or off the exchange
Premiums are much much lower if one has an HSA...BUT, and as in my case with private insurance, the first $7000 in medical expenses is all out of pocket. The full cost of a dr visit, the full cost of all prescriptions etc.
I put money each month aside in an HSA account (payroll deduction) and it's tax free. The money is then spent on dr, dentist, Rx etc via a special VISA account it is tied to particula insurance program and the premiums are adjusted because of that HSA. The Feds have limited the items where they HSA funds can be spent and how much can be socked away in an HSA each year. The last 2 years, I have spent much less than 1/2 that $7000 deductable amount. Over the years I have built up a nest egg so the unused portion I get to keep for the one time I may have the full $7000 due because of an accident or catastrophic illness. i figured that will the lower premiums I am ahead of the game. But that is only because I and my family are relatively healthy. HSA would be tough if we had to meet the $7000 every year...hence my previous comment. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:24 AM
nationalize the fed (2,169 posts)
23. Thank this woman
Karen Ignagni
![]() America's Health Insurance Plans President and CEO Karen Ignagni and the New Ambassador to China, Max Baucus who had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and Imagine if the Republicans had passed a law that required everyone to buy corporate insurance with no public option Harry Reid pulls a gruber |
Response to nationalize the fed (Reply #23)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:05 PM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
111. Make sure you keep leaving out Lieberman.
It's not like he had any effect on the possibility of single payer.
![]() |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:27 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
26. Well I did well with it
I don't want it gone. I'd have to go back to a huge deductible. And due to the subsidies, I am paying a lot less for a much better deductible. Plus I have dental - in fact it's a little more expensive than the amount I pay for the medical.
It's ideal for self employed people not making a huge amount to pay for the value of the policy (I'm paying about a tenth of what it's worth). And being self employed is supposed to be so entrepreneurial and all-American. It's for real and it has improved my situation. It's not a pipe dream, as it actually passed and became a law. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:29 AM
Ykcutnek (1,305 posts)
29. OK, but not before I take it out for a nice steak dinner.
With all the money I saved from getting affordable coverage.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:29 AM
elleng (122,859 posts)
30. Sorry. Complain to your state.
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:06 AM
minivan2 (214 posts)
47. I think we may have a republican troll.
I'll alert the media, call the army, bring in torpedoes and sound the alarms.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:11 AM
Recursion (56,552 posts)
50. Single payer is not health care, it's insurance
I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does, really: single payer is also just insurance reform.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #50)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:39 AM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
62. Yeah. Single payer reforms the profit right out of health insurance.
Why do you think we advocate single payer?
|
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #62)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:46 AM
Recursion (56,552 posts)
64. No, on its own it really doesn't
That's why I keep complaining.
|
Response to Recursion (Reply #64)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:56 AM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
66. If we examine the single payer systems around the world there is very little
insurance industry profit involved. In the Netherlands, for example, the private insurance industry administers the health care program but the insurance industry is not allowed to profit from this.
Name a single payer system where private insurance companies play a large profitable role. |
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #66)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:50 AM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
76. True. So you cut out 10% of the premium by restricting profit. Folks are still gonna
gripe. I don't think that would change the OP.
And, I'm not convinced you'd even cut 10% because single payer - like Medicare - does very little to control cost other than cut provider payments. We need a lot more changes than just eliminating insurance company profits, which is actually an aspect of the ACA. |
Response to Hoyt (Reply #76)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:59 AM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
78. Really?
Maybe you should look at the health care costs of Western European nations compared to those in the US.
A well designed single payer system would control costs. We shouldn't allow the pharmaceutical companies and the health care services industry to rip us off as they are. |
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #78)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:05 AM
Hoyt (54,770 posts)
81. Yep really. I bet docs and hospitals don't get paid as much there. I bet there is not
an MRI in every hospital and some doctors' offices.. I bet patients there don't demand the latest drug, even if it not much better than a cheaper alternative. I bet they do a lot of things to make the system efficient that providers and consumers would not accept here.
|
Response to Hoyt (Reply #81)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:09 AM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
82. I bet you would be wrong.
What we would accept? Are you kidding? Look what we accept now.
Millions of American have been bankrupted due to medical costs. Hundreds of thousands have died because they were denied care by their insurance company, if they even had insurance. What would we accept........ |
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #62)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:03 AM
tridim (45,358 posts)
106. The ACA regulates the profit of health insurance industry...
For the first time in the history of this country.
Slipped your mind? |
Response to tridim (Reply #106)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:42 PM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
195. I'm not saying anything about the ACA.
I am addressing single payer. Single payer completely eliminates corporate profit health care. And that should be the ultimate objective for all of us, including ACA supporters. I have been a vocal supporter of the ACA all along.
|
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #195)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:50 PM
tridim (45,358 posts)
197. Got it, thanks for the clarification. nt
Response to Recursion (Reply #50)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:33 AM
treestar (81,181 posts)
220. It's one of those slogans people think are so clever.
Which, on examination, mean nothing. Maybe they think single payer means no one will pay and doctors will work for free. It almost seems that way.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:19 AM
bravenak (34,648 posts)
51. Single payer is also insurance.
Response to bravenak (Reply #51)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:25 AM
A Simple Game (9,214 posts)
87. Technically yes it is, but it is also so much more.
Single payer could drop the administration cost to 1 or 2 percent, monitors waste and fraud much better, it's debatable if this would be a good idea but it could eliminate deductibles and co-pays, and gets rid of networks and especially out-of-networks.
This is just a start, I could go on with much more. How about eliminating bankruptcy caused by medical expenses, choosing between food and medicine, emergency room costs, etc. What is intangible but is very important to me is that single payer would end anyone profiting off the ill fortune of people. Also ended, as it has partially, would be discrimination for where you live, how old you are, previous health history, occupation, present health conditions, and yes it would end the death panels within the private insurance industry. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:30 AM
pnwmom (107,642 posts)
53. The ACA was written for you to have Medicaid -- so screw the Rethugs in your state, not the ACA.
And no plan under the ACA can ask you about pre-existing conditions, or charge you more based on your gender. Your payment will only be based on your income and age (unless you are a smoker in which case you'll pay a higher premium.)
Also, you would immediately be able to receive the Essential Benefits, without having paid the deductible. I agree with you that single-payer would be better, but if you think there's a chance the Rethugs will go along with that, you're wrong. |
Response to pnwmom (Reply #53)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:44 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
73. true, but it was also the supreme court which allowed his state not to expand medicaid if they
didn't want to
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:38 AM
MoonchildCA (1,296 posts)
54. It's certainly not perfect...
and my heart goes out to you. And though, I'm sure, most of us agree here that single-payer is the best option, you need to place the blame where it belongs: the Supreme Court and your governor. Under the ACA, as it was intended, you would have insurance.
My daughter currently has Medical, because of ACA, and I owe my life to it. I got on PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan) 2 years ago, before the law was fully enacted, and received a life-saving surgery. My self-employed husband and I have insurance now for the first time in years. I agree, there are many problems, and because of the republican governors refusing the expanded Medicaid coverage, many, like you, are left out in the cold, but that does not negate the millions, like myself, that it has helped. It's not that expensive for those that receive it, and though the deductibles and co-pays can be high for some people, they will not financially devastate and bankrupt you like my $300,000 surgery would have us. Hopefully, this will open the door for single-payer. May Vermont lead the way... |
Response to MoonchildCA (Reply #54)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:50 AM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
58. Actually the $6000 could
bankrupt me
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:39 AM
LibDemAlways (15,139 posts)
55. I think the replies here illustrate a big problem
with the ACA. Its value is relative depending on geography. It isn't your fault it's unaffordable for you, but some posters here are being awfully smug because they happen to live elsewhere and it is working for them.
This backward country desperately needs uniform single payer health care. The mishmash we have now is an improvement over what we had before, but it is clearly not working for everybody. |
Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #55)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:31 PM
KingCharlemagne (7,908 posts)
171. I'm wondering why no progressive legal beagles have raised an "Equal Protection" case
for people like the OP who are being denied equal protection under the law due to the perfidy of their states' legislators and governors.
IANAL so this is purely speculation on my part. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:49 AM
SheilaT (23,156 posts)
56. Ummm, I'm no expert here, but
I think it's not quite correct that you will have all of that money out of pocket before you get any benefit.
I think various office visits will be covered, also certain tests. In fact, isn't basic coverage required under the ACA? The deductibles involve procedures that aren't already mandated, so you should be able to get a certain amount of health care anyway. Oh, and I think vaccinations are covered under the ACA. And to reinforce what some others have already said, if your state didn't expand Medicaid, your problem is NOT with the ACA but with your state, so please stop blaming the ACA for what your state refuses to do. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:16 AM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
60. If that is what you want, write your congrfessman every day. Forward your e-mail to the White
House and to progressive senators like Franken, Warren and Sanders. I'm on Medicare.
We should have had a public option. Thank (sarcasm) Baucus for the fact that we do not. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #60)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:49 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
75. That is good, but in all honesty with the make up of the Congress the way it is, that will not
change anything for him in the next two years. In fact it may get worse for some depending on the supreme court which may take away subsidies for those in states that don't have exchanges.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:41 AM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
63. What 'blue' state didn't expand Medicaid?
Offhand, I can't think of one, although you say you live in one that didn't.
|
Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #63)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:00 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
79. Wisconsin. Here is a link
Response to still_one (Reply #79)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:25 AM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
83. On a presidential level, maybe, but more purple, on the state level.
Although it's gone into the Democratic column for POTUS since 1984, it's been a perennial 'battleground' state. The GOP controls the legislature, re-elected a GOP governor, and 5 of it's 8 U.S. Representatives are Republicans.
|
Response to still_one (Reply #79)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:22 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
182. The Walker and the rest of the state legislator, is repsonsible for
deciding NOT to expand ...... you are trying to imply they are NOT Republican?
grasping, it would seem. |
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #182)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:40 PM
still_one (87,279 posts)
185. Did you read the question? He asked what blue state didn't expand medicaid
Where did I even say it was republican or Democrat?
I simply indicated a traditionally blue state didn't expand. It was because of the republicans of course, but historically WI was blue especially in the presidential elections, until recently with the idiots in WI not reelecting feingild, and electing walker three frickn times. MI and Iowa have also been considered traditionally blue states, but with the midterm elections something must be in the water there because as of late they are electing right wing crazies My intention was never to imply what you accused me of. The other responder to my post got what I was saying, and argued that even though WI goes blue in the presidential elections, he would consider it a purple state |
Response to still_one (Reply #185)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:53 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
188. pretty clear that the question was intended to highlight
if Republicans or Democrats were involved in making the decision to expand.
|
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #188)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:55 PM
still_one (87,279 posts)
189. The auto type screwed up my response, ugly was not intended
I have changed it the way I meant it
As far as the other point the question related to blue states not expanding Medicaid. I thought of WI as blue, because it had been before walker |
Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #63)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:18 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
129. Florida.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #129)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:17 PM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
150. Since when has Florida been 'blue'?
It's a very deep purple.
|
Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #150)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:11 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
181. Blue enough to majority vote for Obama.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #181)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:32 PM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
192. And to have a Teabagger governor and Republican legislature. n/t
Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #192)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:25 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
208. Let us know when you don't want our majority vote for a Dem POTUS.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #208)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 06:09 AM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
217. Your point being what?
A presidential vote doesn't make a state 'blue', any more than having a tail makes everything with a tail a dog.
|
Response to ColesCountyDem (Reply #217)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:49 AM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
221. Oh it's a state purity thing with you huh? Good luck with that.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #221)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:51 AM
ColesCountyDem (6,943 posts)
222. What point are you trying to make?
My point is that the way in which a state votes for POTUS is not a reliable indicator of whether or not the state is blue, purple or red.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #181)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:44 PM
noiretextatique (27,274 posts)
196. Blue enough for a majority to vote for Gore in 2000 too eom
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:06 AM
Brigid (17,621 posts)
67. This is exactly what I went through last year . . .
When I went to a sign-up event and came away with nothing. I had the temerity to say so, and was attacked just like this -- for living in the wrong state or something. If you benefit from ACA, then good for you -- but don't bother cheerleading it to those who don't. At least stop attacking us.
|
Response to Brigid (Reply #67)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:36 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
71. That is a problem, many people don't think, just attack. The problem with the OP is happening
because of his state refusing to expand Medicaid, but that isn't the OPs fault. It is also the fault of the Supreme Court for saying states did not have to expand Medicaid if they want to.
The evil of those state legislatures which refused to expand Medicaid is as bad as they come. The expansion of Medicaid through the ACA actually brings money into the state from the feds, and not expanding Medicaid actually costs those states more money. Adding that to the human toll of actually going out of their way so people can't afford insurance points how totally vile they are. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:20 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
68. If you can't afford it and are not subsidized, you have to go without, however, it is your state
and the Supreme Court you should be upset with for not being part of the expanded Medicaid program which is part of the ACA. It is because of your state and the supreme court why you are falling into that hole where you have a lot of company.
As an aside, You do know that Medicare Part B costs about 100 dollars a month, and most people under Medicare get a supplemental policy to cover what Part B doesn't, and that costs. The costs are more reasonable if they choose a Medicare Advantage plan, but it still costs. If your premium exceed 8% of your income for the bronze plan you are exempted from the mandate, but that doesn't get you insurance. When you say 3600, you mean 300 dollars a month, and that is unaffordable based on your figures above. Based on your situation if you want insurance in your state from your figures above, it looks like you need to earn about 3000 a year more. Because of your state refusing to expand Medicaid the ACA didn't account for that situation, again thanks to the supreme court, and you are left without insurance. One more quick point, even with the deductibles you mentioned, there are some things that you are covered for and the deductibles do not apply. A yearly physical, vaccinations, and a couple of other things but it really isn't enough. All the issues you bring up about single-payer, Medicare for all, etc. are what it should be, but because of the blue dog democrats, and all the republicans, the only thing that could be had at the time was the ACA, and frankly after the last election it isn't going to get better, unless your state expands Medicaid. If they do that, you should not need worry about an open enrollment, and you should be able to sign up right away. Unfortunately, Most of the states that refused to expand Medicaid do not look like they will change based on the republican wins that have occurred. Other than making a little more money to qualify for the subsidy, changing jobs to a company that pays for health insurance, or going to another state which has expanded Medicaid, unfortunately you will be uninsured. Sorry for your situation. Try to eat properly, exercise, and get plenty of rest so you don't get sick, and hope things change. One thing you might consider is getting a flu shot. Yes, That will cost you a little, it should NOT cost more than 25 dollars, you can shop around a various drug stores which offer them now. Good luck, and really sorry for your situation |
Response to still_one (Reply #68)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:33 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
138. Last I heard it was about half the states that didn't expand Medicaid.
So it's their fault for living in those states. If they don't qualify for ACA they also don't make enough money to move to another state either.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #138)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:39 PM
still_one (87,279 posts)
144. The first blame actually goes to the supreme court, then the states
Ironically the states involved by not expanding Medicaid are actually losing money, which only highlights how evil the republicans in those states are. They are hurting their own states finances, and poor, because they cannot stomach that what they consider "the help" was elected TWICE, and just like Romney who keeps doing interviews bashing the president, they have such animosity and hate they won't even help the most needy
I suspect they also call themselves good christians |
Response to still_one (Reply #144)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:25 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
183. The blame game doesn't help. ACA is very flawed if it won't cover 50% of the people who need it.
The people who need it are the ones that don't qualify for ACA and need Medicare in its place. So those who's income is more than poverty level and in Florida less than 16k are fucked and by that 50% I mean those states that won't supply Medicaid. Basically a hell of a lot of poor people get left out while we all praise Obama for ACA. That's not right no matter what the excuses are. Calling those people liars for speaking up about it is just third way sociopath psychobabble.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #183)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:45 PM
still_one (87,279 posts)
186. No it won't solve it. But it is the reason why, and once again the fact that elections have
Consequences
I resent that you implied I called the op a liar. That is a lie, or you have a comprehension problem I agreed with the op, laid out some possible suggestions, but not once did I accuse the op of lying Read my posts in this group and educate me where I am attacking the OP |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:35 AM
Politicalboi (15,189 posts)
70. I get MediCal now
If not for ACA I wouldn't have that. Sorry you live in a state that is run by "morans". I live in Ca. It works GREAT for me, and I don't pay a dime. I'm not working and I'm 53. I got free dental too. I can now get some help without being a certain age, or have any children. Maybe you should either get out the vote in 2016, or move to a sane state.
|
Response to Politicalboi (Reply #70)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:46 AM
still_one (87,279 posts)
74. Of course. I live in California also, but that doesn't solve his problem, and moving to another
state may not be doable
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:42 AM
liberal N proud (59,667 posts)
84. How about blaming the state officials who chose not to participate?
Misdirected anger doesn't help!
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:50 AM
WinkyDink (51,311 posts)
85. Medicare isn't quite free. What state are you in? If it's PA, maybe there's hope now with Wolf.
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:15 AM
Man from Pickens (1,713 posts)
86. ACA doesn't solve the real problem
which is fraud and profiteering on the billing end - it's the amounts being charged, not the mechanics of compensation, which is the key issue. NO system can be sustained at these prices, no matter how otherwise perfect or imperfect it may be.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:38 AM
egduj (754 posts)
92. Insurance companies are making a killing off it, though.
It's not bad for everyone.
|
Response to egduj (Reply #92)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:26 AM
sendero (28,552 posts)
100. And just about everyone involved..
... in providing care, except the low-level workers and primary care physicians.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:07 AM
workinclasszero (28,270 posts)
96. God bless America!! WE'RE NUMBER 1 !!!!!!!!
#1. It's not health care, it's insurance
#2. It's expensive #3. Last year I qualified under Federal guidelines for Medicaid, but my State didn't expand so I couldn't receive it and went uninsured #4. I probably will go uninsured for 2015 Same here. I can't afford any insurance either or the deductibles that come with it. Full time 40 hour a week job, in my 50's, zero health insurance or dental for me my wife and step daughter. What a fucked up BS total lie America is! The rich 1% gets it ALL! |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:19 AM
alarimer (16,245 posts)
98. Our system is utterly ridiculous.
Having to navigate to pick the "best" plan, having to deal with co-payments and deductibles, in-network, out-of-network, etc. and potentially having to change it every year. There is nothing keeping insurance companies from dropping out of the exchanges or jacking up the rates.
There is no way this is a sane system. I have good insurance (an 80/20 plan) I can't actually afford to use because the co-payments are too much. This doesn't even include the amount you might have to pay (the 20%), which is always an unknown quantity until you get the bill. Try to explain this "system" to anyone who has a single payer system (Canada or Britain) or even someone from a country that has strictly regulated insurance (France) and they think we're insane. Because we are. It is so obvious to me that what we need is to pay for a system like Medicare for all (like Canada). In face we already have deductions from our paychecks for Medicare. Why not just raise that a bit, do away with private insurance altogether? What if we made the system completely transparent? X procedure costs X dollars no matter where you are. The government then pays the bills. You go to the doctor, it's paid for. Done. You don't have to worry about medical bankruptcy or avoiding the doctor because of the copayments. Everyone is in the same risk pool. Everyone thinks we're insane for advocating this; it's not true, we're insane for keeping the system we have. Insurance companies are nothing but money-grubbing middlemen. They need to go. And me the bullshit about how it can never happen here. It can and it should. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:29 AM
jpak (41,366 posts)
102. Screw your republican governor - who didn't expand Medicaid
duh
|
Response to jpak (Reply #102)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:56 AM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
110. And your Third Way Democratic governor:
Third Way viper Terry McAuliffe's Kabuki on Medicaid Expansion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5828385 |
Response to jpak (Reply #102)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:16 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
128. Ah yes blame the victim. He should have been smart enough to live in good states.
duh
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:33 AM
Tuesday Afternoon (56,912 posts)
103. I want TriCare - if it is good enough for our Military, it is good enough for me. After all, we are
the ones paying for it with our tax dollars. So, why not?
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 10:36 AM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
104. Screw you ... it'll save my niece's life.
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #104)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:43 PM
Autumn (42,595 posts)
118. Love the screw you's. So very compassionate.
Yep, the good old screw you.
|
Response to Autumn (Reply #118)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:26 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
170. Hard to feel compasion for some one pointing the finger of blame ...
... in the wrong direction.
Especially when the thing they attack, is saving millions of people (my niece included) and did nothing to make their situation worse than it was before. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #170)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:37 PM
Autumn (42,595 posts)
174. I'm not convinced that voicing frustration with a program that doesn't help a person who needs
help is pointing the finger of blame ... How do you know that a fellow DUers situation ISN'T worse than what it was before? You don't and your remark was cruel, made even more cruel because no one here knows about your niece and no one has ever said "screw" your niece.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:48 AM
Bettie (14,728 posts)
108. There are significant issues
I'd prefer single payer.
However, there are a few really good things in there too. Being able to keep kids on insurance longer is one. So, is the preexisting conditions bit. Medicare expansion is really good, as long as you don't live in a state where the governor decided to screw over the poor. I look at these pieces as a step forward. I hate the giveaway to the insurance companies but I have to give credit for the good too. I'm sorry you are having such a hard time finding decent coverage for a reasonable price. My mother is in the same spot right now, she's simply hoping she doesn't get sick for another two years when she can get Medicare. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:52 AM
Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)
109. Have enough people let you know just how ungrateful you are?
I'm sure there may even be some accusations of hating Obama in this thread - possibly with the caveat of racism thrown in.
|
Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #109)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:19 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
130. Just wait until the pros show up.
Might be another 600 post thread in the making.
|
Response to Rex (Reply #130)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:21 PM
Capt. Obvious (9,002 posts)
131. I'm a little stunned that I can see as much of it as I can
Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #131)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:23 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
133. Just make a thread about HRC not running for office.
Another huge thread of pros.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:14 PM
Doctor_J (36,392 posts)
112. It sucks but it part of the US political and fiscal picture now for pretty much ever
It was a huge disappointment for those who believed the 2008 campaign, and it contributed mightily to the party's thrashing in 2010. I am happy for the relative handful who can now get something, but it is pretty bad for those of us who are footing the bill for the record insurance profits. Unfortunately I don't think the DC Dems ever had any intention of SP or even a PO. Part of the quid pro quo for the 2008 election was handing the 3 trillion dollar healthcare pie to profiteers, middlemen, and 1%ers.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:20 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
114. Lots and lots of Third Way talking points, all lined up.
Almost as though there was an emergency damage control meeting....
Meanwhile, the looting escalates... "Why Health Insurance Shareholders Are Loving Obamacare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310 Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789 ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/ So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #114)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:12 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
125. They are out in force on this one. It's almost sociopathic.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #125)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:25 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
134. Typical MO. The corporate exploitation of the ACA
has been thoroughly laid out in two very recent previous threads. Nothing in this thread is putting effective lipstick on that corporate pig.
It's the MO of the Third Way to come back after a topic has devastated them and throw out all their disingenuous talking points in a new thread, again and again, until people are just tired of debunking their garbage. The OP is over in the lounge talking about being "banged up" here. The only "banging" I see is of stale Third Way talking points that keep needing to be repeated in a new thread, because they've been thoroughly destroyed in previous ones... "Why Health Insurance Shareholders Are Loving Obamacare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310 Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789 ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/ So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. |
Response to woo me with science (Reply #134)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:30 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
137. It's rather ironic that they care more about those who can use ACA than those that can't.
Of course they accuse those who can't use ACA as being liars. That's about as pathetic as is gets.
I sit here in Florida with my permanently disabled wife on SSDI and I do not qualify for ACA and there's no Medicaid expansion here ....so according to the third way trolls it's our fault for living in Florida. |
Response to L0oniX (Reply #137)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:39 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
143. I am so sick of these vipers. Many with the same problem in Third Way-governed Virginia,
after former DLC head Terry McAuliffe lied through his campaign about putting an expansion for 400,000 in his budget but then changed his mind. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=690713 |
Response to L0oniX (Reply #137)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:07 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
165. The math makes no sense, L0oniX.
If they make $25,000 a year, they're eligible for a lot of help.
It looks like they're in Pennsylvania, which has a great Silver plan with a much cheaper deductible and copays for doctors visits so they may never have to touch the deductible, even for a 55 year old (and I have no idea what their age is) The only explanation is if they keyed in something wrong, like saying they weren't going to file a tax return so they weren't eligible for a subsidy, or if they are a smoker. |
Response to L0oniX (Reply #125)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:59 PM
DrDan (20,411 posts)
190. over the week-end their target was some poor DUer who had a letter clearly showing her increase for
Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1) 2015.
She posted the letter yet was still labeled a liar, fraud, hater. Pathetic. |
Response to DrDan (Reply #190)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:13 PM
Dragonfli (10,622 posts)
204. A disabled widow at that
It was her fault for being poor, disabled, and a widow. How dare she not be able to afford to receive care, she is too poor to pay the protection racket on purpose because ODS!
Luckily, the truly compassionate voices of the Heritage foundation arrived to care for what was truly important and defended their protection scheme's reputation from her with extreme prejudice and smote her most justly for her evil acts of health care need. I wonder how many of them know they are working for a right wing think tank defending a right wing scheme designed specifically to monetize suffering? |
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #204)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 10:54 AM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
223. It's obvious that some who call themselves democrats are really republicans.
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:06 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
122. This is my same situation with ACA. For me it's unusable.
Response to L0oniX (Reply #122)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:38 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
142. Would you care to expand on your situation?
I want to see the "family glitch" fixed. Desperately. That would open the ACA to so many middle-class folks who are currently struggling to pay for overpriced insurance through their companies.
But for my situation, as a disabled person not yet eligible for Medicare, it's allowed me to get maintenance treatment for my problems and not end up in the hospital again. Had been hospitalized four times in a year and a half prior to the ACA. |
Response to moriah (Reply #142)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:28 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
184. My home and cars are paid off. We don't qualify for ACA in Florida.
I make 15k a yr and the wife is on SSDI.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #184)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:14 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
191. I know people have been getting ACA coverage in Florida.
Not Medicaid, but subsidized premiums.
I plugged in 15k plus what I get on SSDI, which is actually high for most, for two people at age 40 in Florida. (For just you, by yourself, it'd be even cheaper, if she has been on SSDI long enough to get Medicare.) You are likely eligible for financial help
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 228% of the poverty level. This means you are likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace. An estimate of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help in 2015 are provided below. To find out your actual amount of financial help and to get coverage, you must go to Healthcare.gov or your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace. Estimated financial help: $457 per month ($5,488 per year) as a premium tax credit. This covers 68% of the monthly costs. Your cost for a silver plan: $219 per month ($2,624 per year) in premiums (which equals 7.32% of your household income). The most you have to pay for a silver plan: 7.32% of income for the second-lowest cost silver plan Without financial help, your silver plan would cost: $676 per month ($8,112 per year) ---- Now, you'll have to file a tax return, jointly, if you want to get coverage for both of you. Her income won't be taxable, but must be stated to get the premium tax credit. But that's less than $110 per person per month for a Silver plan. It looks like Florida has really sucky Silver plans, though. I'd probably go for this one: UnitedHealthcare · United Healthcare Silver Compass 4000 -- while it has a $4000 deductible, your medications and doctors visits would be covered by copays, so you shouldn't have to touch your deductible except for lab work or emergency room visits. It'd be a little more than $219, it'd be $226 a month for the both of you (or $29 for just you from what I can see). Of course, this is just me throwing things into the computer and seeing what comes up. If I were you, I would go work with a Navigator, either in-person or through the Helpline. If your wife already has Medicare, you might be able to enroll just on your income by yourself. If that's still unaffordable, I'm very sorry, and I want the ACA to be improved to do more. |
Response to moriah (Reply #191)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:36 PM
L0oniX (31,493 posts)
209. Wife gets on Medicare next month $110 from her $810 SSDI. Of course a $4000
yearly deductible would take me just 2k above poverty level. Right now by paying cash I get Medicare rates. Just got an MRI for $150, a CT scan for $388 and a ultra sound for $288. It's cheaper to pay cash unless its catastrophic. Now if I could get just catastrophic coverage only for $29 and no deductible I'd go for it.
|
Response to L0oniX (Reply #209)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 12:56 AM
moriah (8,311 posts)
210. For me, the copays saved me.
That, and the fact that Arkansas Blue Cross, with the cost-sharing benefits for a Silver plan, gives me only a $500 deductible and a $1200 max out-of-pocket for $97 a month for 2015.
Still, trying to scrounge up $500 on SSDI, even though I draw more than your wife, is difficult. The fact that the only thing I had to have this year outside of copays on doctor's visits and medication was a blood draw to check my lithium levels, and since I'm at max out-of-pocket already, if I have another this year it'll be free. But I see a therapist twice a month, a shrink once a month (so specialist copay), get about $200 of medications a month, then have to see my PCP every 3 months..... and my lung doctor every 6 months..... I hit out-of-pocket quickly. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:35 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
139. So you want to take away my coverage? Screw THAT.
The only "plan" that I've seen that asks about health issues, other than smoking, is my state's Private Option. If you have too complicated of a medical history, it routes you to straight Medicaid, if you have less issues it routes you to getting a Marketplace plan with zero premiums, deductibles, or copays.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:35 PM
riqster (13,986 posts)
140. Ya know, other Americans have different circumstances than yours.
Like me: the ACA IS THE ONLY REASON I AM EMPLOYED. Because of preexisting conditions, I was uninsurable prior to the ACA.
So you want to screw me out of my health care? Because of your individual experience? FFS. Broaden your horizons and see the lives of other people that are different than your own. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:35 PM
Sunlei (22,651 posts)
141. ? with your 3,600 premium?, heres the .gov link, I don't believe you.
https://www.healthcare.gov/
input your zipcode & how much you make per year and show the page with $3600 in premium payments. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:46 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
147. And ya know, while I normally try to give those who are complaining about the ACA the benefit....
.... of the doubt, I qualified for a plan this year that had a $500 deductible, $1200 max out of pocket, 1164 yearly premium.
I draw benefits that are the equivalent of making $10 an hour. If you were Medicaid-eligible last year, you must have a nice job this year to be bitching about Exchange coverage being that high. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:55 PM
Trajan (19,089 posts)
148. Dear mrmpa ... I want to apologize for the rude manner in which you are treated here ...
The accusations that you are "lying" are, of course, way over the top, but I see those who accuse so readily are the same posters who spew their own little hatreds, every day, on this one wonderful forum ...
The fact that some people are getting insurance now under this pittance of a medical plan apparently wipes away any concern for costs borne by those on limited incomes, like your self .... Those DUers who condemn you here? ... mean mean ass people ... it's not going to get any better here ... the mean ass people are not going away ... Indeed ....good luck ... |
Response to Trajan (Reply #148)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:46 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
157. Either they clicked wrong buttons when they looked, or they're lying.
If they're making $24000 a year, which is what 6000 times 4 would be (they stated that $6000 was about 25% of their net income), the Kaiser Family website says the following (and I went ahead and rounded up, to 25000, and suggested they lived in Florida, a non-Medicad Expansion state where premiums went up quite a bit from last year):
You are likely eligible for financial help
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 214% of the poverty level. This means you are likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace. An estimate of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help in 2015 are provided below. To find out your actual amount of financial help and to get coverage, you must go to Healthcare.gov or your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace. Estimated financial help: $106 per month ($1,276 per year) as a premium tax credit. This covers 43% of the monthly costs. Your cost for a silver plan: $143 per month ($1,710 per year) in premiums (which equals 6.84% of your household income). The most you have to pay for a silver plan: 6.84% of income for the second-lowest cost silver plan Without financial help, your silver plan would cost: $249 per month ($2,986 per year) ----- Now, if the OP wants to detail their situation further, like including their age and state, maybe someone could help them find the best plan for them. But with a Silver plan and cost-sharing benefits, which they would get, I can't see how what they are posting is accurate, unless they did one of two things: Checked that they were a smoker, or checked that they would not be filing a tax return. ---- Edit: Since it seems likely the OP is in Pennsylvania, I checked what it'd be for a 55 year old non-smoker in Lebanon County, PA. Their plan would run $129 a month for a $1500 deductible, $4500 max out of pocket PPO plan through a "Community Blue" plan, with $40 PCP visit, $60 specialist visit, and cheaper drug copays than I have. |
Response to Trajan (Reply #148)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:50 PM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
159. Thank you...
very much. I've tried to answer a few, but they don't get it. Yes, yes it comes down to limited income. The ACA even with subsidies is not affordable for all, it wasn't last year, when I couldn't get a subsidy nor any type of insurance. It is not this year based on my limited income, which is needed for housing, food and bills. There is not enough left for me to put aside $6000 for health care costs.
It is not right nor fair that the bronze plans are not even affordable & have high deductibles. |
Response to mrmpa (Reply #159)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:15 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
167. Please look at the Silver plans, and make sure you aren't checking that you're ....
.... a smoker (unless you are, and if so, well, that's the problem, maybe you should quit like I did), or that you're not going to file a tax return (which eliminates your ability to get a subsidy).
I see a Silver plan for $129 a month for a 55-year-old in Lebanon County, PA (just took a random PA zip code) with a $1500 deductible and copays that would make it where you never had to touch the deductible. That'd be a $1548 premium a year, as compared to $3000, and would have a deductible you never had to touch except for lab work or hospitalizations. Please, before you think that the ACA is unaffordable, make sure that you're looking at the correct information. If you want to PM me with your info so I can look it up for you, please feel free. |
Response to moriah (Reply #167)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:45 PM
B Calm (28,762 posts)
206. $129 a month for a Silver plan is pretty damn cheap!
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:27 PM
Martin Eden (11,956 posts)
152. Affordable Care Act ...
... does not make health insurance affordable to everyone, and it falls far short of universal health care (which all advanced societies should have). But the ACA is a definite improvement over the previous status quo. It is saving lives and helping millions of Americans.
Let's remember that going forward we are not limited to either repealing the ACA (going back to the status quo) or keeping it unchanged and unimproved. Ultimately the ACA may prove an inadequate platform to achieve universal affordable care. The main thing is for the American people to stay engaged to achieve that goal, and real progress requires putting real progressives in office to represent the interests of the 99%. |
Response to Martin Eden (Reply #152)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:46 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
156. The most brazenly Orwellian name yet for a Corporate
siphoning of wealth upward. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:50 PM
frazzled (18,389 posts)
158. You want Medicare like your Mom? That's INSURANCE too, not health care
I want to put a stop to these idiotic arguments that ACA is insurance, not health care. Medicare and Medicaid aren't health care either. They're insurance. If you want to talk about the difference in public and private insurance, fine. But don't pretend that Medicare is health care. It's not. It's an insurance policy through the government. If you want health care, you have to go find a doctor or hospital.
The only "health care" system the government offers is the VA system. Very few countries in the world offer government "health care" (meaning the doctors are all employed by the state, and the hospitals are state-run). |
Response to frazzled (Reply #158)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:52 PM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
160. I do understand medicare..........
is an insurance policy, but it guarantees her health care at reasonable costs. The ACA does not guarantee health care a reasonable cost.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #160)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 02:59 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
162. Did you check that you were a smoker, or that you were not going to file a tax return?
It looks like you're in Pennsylvania, and I see a much cheaper Silver plan you're eligible for, with a much lower deductible and copays so you may not even touch the deductible.
|
Response to moriah (Reply #162)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:07 PM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
199. Oh I pay my taxes..............
and I'm single so I pay a high rate and that leads me to be a smoker.
|
Response to mrmpa (Reply #199)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 09:02 PM
moriah (8,311 posts)
207. Wasn't suggesting you didn't pay, but some people don't have to file.
If you accidentally clicked that button enrolling, it shows premiums without a subsidy.
I think it's the being a smoker that's eating your costs, hon. |
Response to mrmpa (Reply #160)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:03 PM
frazzled (18,389 posts)
164. Medicare doesn't cover everything
You will have to purchase a supplemental private insurance plan to cover what Medicare does not. And don't forget, people pay into the Medicare system for about 45 years of their adult lives (not that this is "your" personal money to recoup: it's money you pay into the system that pays for the health care of current Medicare users). You've paid tens of thousands of dollars into the system by the time you need to use that system. Also, not all drugs are covered, and some of these can be quite expensive.
I can't wait to get Medicare either (though I happen to have great employer-based insurance right now). But I realize it's not perfect. |
Response to frazzled (Reply #164)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 07:05 PM
mrmpa (4,033 posts)
198. I have 42 years paid into medicare.............`
been paying since I was 16
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:42 PM
McCamy Taylor (19,240 posts)
175. Don't you mean "Screw my state for not expanding Medicaid" and screw the SCOTUS for enabling your
state to do so? The ACA would have required that your state expand Medicaid.
|
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:00 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
177. first, you are blaming ACA because your state did not expand?
what a bullshit post.
and fwiw, I have a decent job with an HSA, no Obamacare possible here. My out of pocket is $7500 before ANYTHING kicks in, co-pays etc...the whole crappinola comes out of my pocket....this is before any premiums. So cry me a river ok? I get what you want, but fucking over ACA doesn't get anyone 'there'. Perhpas reading up a little on how Medicare and Social Security was implemented piecemeal and over the long term, may get you some adult perspective. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Mon Nov 17, 2014, 04:03 PM
pa28 (6,145 posts)
178. When I read your title I had a feeling PR flacks would come out to attack you.
And guess what? They did!
If the bill had contained the promised (and necessary) public option I sincerely doubt you would be having this problem now. As for me, while I watch my own costs go up and coverage go down I can't help wondering why I'm supposed to love the ACA so much. I'm sure millions of others around the country share your sense of frustration with this law. |
Response to mrmpa (Original post)
Tue Nov 18, 2014, 05:01 PM
Motown_Johnny (22,308 posts)
224. Good thing this is all about you
and the ten million people who now have insurance (and therefore easier access to health care) thanks to Obamacare don't matter at all.
I guess everyone in a state that did expand Medicaid should suffer because yours didn't. Maybe you should consider moving to a less red state. |