ObamaCare vs. the Affordable Care Act

[Tom Wetmore]

Go Jimmy...

[Jeannieb43]

Wow! That just shows how uninformed some people are.

[phkrause]

Exactly

[phkrause]

Wow! That just shows how uninformed some people are.

I'm not sure I'd say some, just from some posts here, it seems many have no clue.

[bonnie]

I'm not sure I'd say some, just from some posts here, it seems many have no clue.

We have had businesses close here,two that have been in business for decades. Family business,plans for the adult children to take over.After the CPA went over this affordable care act and they realized the cost involved,they closed their doors. They were retirement age and didn't intend to place themselves in that position.Are they ignorant and don't have a clue? The job of the CPA was to educate himself as to what the requirements and cost would be for his clients. Is he just ignorant and giving bad advice?

It is almost impossible to get a full time job in our area.The Healthcare Act is the reason. Are all these businesses ignorant,without a clue?

Are the parents of special needs children ignorant and simply don't understand the benefits of losing their tax free medical savings that is used to care for their children?

When families see what this "savings" is actually going to cost them over and above what they are paying is it ignorance on their part?

How did a few gain so much knowledge and it has successfully been kept a secret from union members,families,businesses etc?

[Bravus]

From friends on another forum:

Aqua:

Quote:

I'm under the impression, maybe mistakenly, that all premiums for the new healthcare plans will be higher than they are now. If that's the case then it doesn't matter that they will be lower than previously expected, so the whole thing is a stunt.

Editengine:

Quote:

Dear god, no. A family of four in New York with an income of $60,000 a year if neither adult has a job that offers healthcare (all employers w/50 or more employees must offer it) will pay about $409 for one of the higher cost plans each month. The GOP is quoting the amount pre-subsidy (which is about $1100). The fed will pay a subsidy that covers all or part of the cost of the plan depending on family size and income because it is a lot cheaper than paying for all of the cost of uninsured people.

All the folks saying their rates are going up are quoting current plans, not the ones that will be available on the exchanges. Plans not on the exchanges will get more expensive since they are, well, not on the exchanges. For individuals those open on Oct 1, for businesses on Nov 1. If you have ever shopped for insurance on your own, and I have, $400 a month to cover yourself is a pretty decent price. $400 for an entire family is crazy low, especially when your employer can set up a pre-tax flex account and you can pay it with pre-tax dollars.

MrsK:

Quote:

But what are the copay prices like with that Edit? That is what cripples so many people I know

Editengine:

Quote:

Oct 1 the plans will be avail, but it looks like $10-$25 per copay, but the out of pocket costs vary from 60%-90% with caps much like current plans. Most plans in the us cover 80% of costs with a deductible. But the normal doctor visit is just a copay. My worst experience was when I got sick back in 2005 and wound up in the hospital for a month. My out of pocket max was $2000 and insurance covered 80% until I hit that $2000. After that, insurance pays 100% which for me was about $250,000.

[Tom Wetmore]

Are the parents of special needs children ignorant and simply don't understand the benefits of losing their tax free medical savings that is used to care for their children?

Not sure which type of tax free medical savings you are talking about, since there are several, but no they won't lose them. There is a cap placed on FSA's, but even that is well above the average amount employees put in an FSA. Many employers already put a limit on the amount an employee can put in an FSA. The current average FSA annual contribution is $1400. The Affordable Care Act set the cap at $2500.

Originally Posted By: bonnie

How did a few gain so much knowledge and it has successfully been kept a secret from union members,families,businesses etc?

Because few bother to even try to find correct answers. They just accept what they hear from the misinformation brokers and don't seek information for themselves. The information is there for those who are willing to find it. It is not kept secret.

[bonnie]

The families I deal with put every dollar they can into tax free medical savings accounts. When it comes to accepting something that is said,I will accept their concerns over this and what it means to them before I will someone that does not have the personal information.Perhaps it would be helpful if I assured them that you don't think it will impact them

Quote:

Because few bother to even try to find correct answers. They just accept what they hear from the misinformation brokers and don't seek information for themselves. The information is there for those who are willing to find it. It is not kept secret.

The apparent arrogance of some is always interesting.

While you may not have a lot of respect for the intelligence of those that have a successful business,most understand that people to not succeed because they are to lazy to find out how laws and regulations will effect them.

All that want exemptions,cutting back on employee hours,closing a business etc lack the information you have? Don't think so.

Their CPA's have gone thru this Affordable Care Act line by line to understand how it will impact the bottom line for their clients. Giving wrong advice or not caring enough to educate themselves would be a sure way of not staying in business very long.

I can't give you all the financial data the local businesses that have closed locally were dealing with,nor can you claim to know they simply didn't seek information. They did and that information was the deciding factor in closing a business they had not planned on closing.

Most established businesses that have full time employees do not like the disruption and all that goes into numerous part time employees,but it is preferable to what they would face.

Business owners are not stupid,nor do they operate their businesses based on partisan politics or because they happen to dislike the existing administration. They do their best to operate their business based on sound financial practices and rely on those that actually read line by line regulations that will impact their clients.

[Bravus]

A business that shuts down rather than fulfill its obligations to its employees has no business being open in the first place.

Exploitation is not a valid business model.

[Ted Oplinger]

Go Jimmy...

">

[Naomi]

Thank you Ted for being a voice of reason

[Bravus]

Given that the shutdown has shut down the exchanges, no-one really has enough information yet to even make a reasonable determination about whether the ACA will lead to cheaper health care prices, let alone better actual health care outcomes when the insurance is used.

[Ted Oplinger]

If that were the case, Bravus, that would be the lead story since October 1. However, it was promoted that the exchanges were not affected by the shut down (these are state functions, not federal), and applications to enroll were to proceed as planned.

The system crashed within 5 minutes on opening day, and the total number of actual enrollees nationwide number in the single person range after 4 days.

What is more, those of our low income people coming in to enroll who did manage to get past the first few pages were stunned when they found their "free healthcare" carried a stiff premium to maintain, and had huge, debt-incurring deductibles.

Yes, pre-existing conditions and certain politically favored electable operations are covered, no problem. However, the time tables associated with treating these pre-existing conditions, as well as new diagnosed chronic and acute care needs, are well in excess of what has become the acceptable norm in America.

They also saw that one's age and anticipated ability to contribute to society factor large in many treatments. Hip replacements at age 80 would be triaged to a different availability than to one going to a person aged 25-35. Yet, how many people need hip replacements at age 25? Precious few.

We already have this issue with the insurance companies already - the most "popular" services (aka, the ones needed and used the most) get dumped by insurance companies because it costs them too much money. Giving the issue to a government that is for all practical intents and purposes, broke, is going to make them available for free? I have a bridge to sell to ANYONE gullible enough to accept that as fact....

In short - it is not like the national healthcare packages many developed countries devised in the past. It certainly has their shortfalls, though - enlarged many times.

In the eyes of many here, there are several avenues that should have been pursued first, before taking this route.

[Bravus]

Well, yes. A proper socialised, single payer system, like those in most other developed nations, would have been far superior.

This is a mishmash, but the issue is not the broke government - the system is run by private corporations and only brokered by the government. The issue is the massive profits to the shareholders in the insurance companies. With those prioritised over all other outcomes, the results are not going to be great.

Still better than a system in which a huge number of Americans have no health insurance at all, though. My friend 'Editengine' (quoted on the previous page) was a grad student when he got Guillain-Barre syndrome. The $250,000 in costs would have bankrupted him for life and thrown him into poverty. He's now an employed, effective member of society, providing for his family.

The outcomes will be seen over the coming months and years, and public resistance to the ACA is falling already, and will continue to fall (except among a small hard core). The shutdown is the last hurrah of its opponents, and is going to (as it should) backfire on them.

It's here, and here to stay. Better start finding a modus vivendi.

[Tom Wetmore]

And no, Obamacare isn't structured the same way as Massachusetts' RomneyCare is. The major differences between those plans make them as different as night is from day.

Not sure exactly what you mean since you offer no specifics, but here is a comparison -

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Obamacare_vs_Romneycare

Seems to me they are quite similar in the major points...

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

. . .what is actually becoming law is the abhorrent mess of the VA healthcare system, . . ..

There are several parts to what people commonly call the VA healthcare system.

VA healthcare is provided by the VHA part. As I have previously posted, we in VHA provide what is well recognized as excellent clinical care. And we do it at a lower cost that other Federal programs, such as Medicare.

Yes, there are some areas in which we need to improve. I do not deny these. We are not perfect.

The VBA, among other things determines whether or not a veteran is eligible for clinical care, and the level of clinical care that the veteran is entitled to receive. NOTE: Veterans are not automatically eligible for our care. Congress has established in the law a complicated system that one most go through to become eligible for clinical care and one that establishes the level of clinical care that can be provided.

This entire system is complicated and clearly is considered to need reform. But, the clinical care is excellent and at great cost.

[olger]

Maybe you should start a business.

[Ted Oplinger]

Well, yes. A proper socialised, single payer system, like those in most other developed nations, would have been far superior.

This is a mishmash, but the issue is not the broke government - the system is run by private corporations and only brokered by the government. The issue is the massive profits to the shareholders in the insurance companies. With those prioritised over all other outcomes, the results are not going to be great.

[Naomi]

You are so right-on Ted. The media hype is so different from what you hear on the street!!!! From Rich & poor alike ... there are few middle class citizens remaining; their votes do not appear to mean anything anyway

No one past, or present who required health care cannot/could not receive it. However, there are steps that have to be taken for approval and therein lies the reason for not 's receiving it!!!

Reform ... yes ... creation of another big government socialized agency...NO!!!

Shame on anyone ... especially political leaders ... that would vote on or support a bill covering 2700 pages which they can't even intelligently discuss. The future ramifications from the relative small portions which I have read are horrendous!

A Government big enough to supply all the people's needs is big enough to take all the people's rights & freedom. FWIW We have lost enough already Nuf said

[olger]

Indeed Ted,

and forsooth.

I agree Naomi. 2700 pages is joke. If they can't make a law that is 10 pages maximum, then scrap it.

2700 pages allowed them to bury lots of triggered land mines in there that no one noticed, until we "found out what was in it."

Nancy Pelosi should have been placed in public stocks for that statement.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here is the problem with the supposed growing opposition and apparent polling results. Despite what appears to be a comedy bit it does illustrate a valid point. The resistence you speak of is to Obamacare without knowing what it is about. Even simply referred to by its correct name resistence is significantly less. And if asked about specific things that the Act actually provides the favorability numbers go up substantially.

The bottom line to its opposition has nothing to do with the substance. It is all political. The simple fact that almost everyone here that is opposed cannot even discuss its specific provisions and can only resort to broadside political attacks demonstrates that. It is only because Obama's name is attached to it that it gets stiff opposition. Let's not forget this whole thing was passed by a Republican controlled Congress.

If Obama could magically convince Republicans that he invented guns, they would line up to have the Second Amendment repealed.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I agree Naomi. 2700 pages is joke. If they can't make a law that is 10 pages maximum, then scrap it.

2700 pages allowed them to bury lots of triggered land mines in there that no one noticed, until we "found out what was in it."

Nancy Pelosi should have been placed in public stocks for that statement.

I recently had a kitchen fire that did 12,000.00 of damage.

My insurance company was very easy to work with and paid promptly. The restoration companies gave me the problem.

Went thru a list of them and finally settled on one. Sounded great on the phone and I was very detailed in what I wanted them to do,some of the work we had done or were going to do. They came to the house and we went thru it again. They submitted an estimate to me and to the insurance company and it did not even closely resemble what we had discussed. They kept pushing me to sign the contract and I refused,telling them they would have to rewrite the estimate to reflect what we had discussed. They put me off for a week and then told me,"Let's just get this signed and it will all work out in the end" When I told the man he was not Obama and I was not Obamacare and I was not a Obama supporter

he responded by saying he didn't feel we could work together on this.

Same logic,there are those here that would recommend I sign this contract and waited for it all to work out regardless of the cost to me

[bonnie]

A business that shuts down rather than fulfill its obligations to its employees has no business being open in the first place.

Exploitation is not a valid business model.

Maybe you should start a business.

Obligation to an employee is the promised salary/benefits for the promised performance of the employee on a weekly basis.

Some people seem to believe that by owning your own business you are responsible for that employee as long as the employee dictates.

Does that thinking go both ways? Employee must give a 100% to the job every day and never search for better employment elsewhere?

My brother closed his business after many highly successful years. Many of his employees had been with them a number of years.They had insurance coverage,paid holidays,401K,paid vacations,life insurance.Paid on a weekly basis. He survived many lean years,worked many 80 hour weeks to make this a success,his employees of course worked 40.

He did not close his business on a whim,misinformation,or dislike of the current administration. He simply was not willing to work longer for less to survive the current regulations.

Somehow that is seen as exploitation by those never walking in those same shoes.

An employer is not your parents or your nanny. They cannot promise you lifetime employment and shouldn't be required to.

Not unless of course a employee promises never to quit for a better position or higher wage somewhere else

[bonnie]

It is almost laughable that there are those that believe businesses react out of ignorance and a very select few have the actual facts.

Those businesses that close or are cutting back to part time have

gone thru this mess line by line and know how it will impact their business. Families with private insurance are just beginning to feel the sting as they wade thru what they were promised and are actually going to receive

[CoAspen]

Here is the problem with the supposed growing opposition and apparent polling results. Despite what appears to be a comedy bit it does illustrate a valid point. The resistence you speak of is to Obamacare without knowing what it is about. Even simply referred to by its correct name resistence is significantly less. And if asked about specific things that the Act actually provides the favorability numbers go up substantially.

The bottom line to its opposition has nothing to do with the substance. It is all political.

The simple fact that almost everyone here that is opposed cannot even discuss its specific provisions and can only resort to broadside political attacks demonstrates that. It is only because Obama's name is attached to it that it gets stiff opposition. Let's not forget this whole thing was passed by a Republican controlled Congress.

If Obama could magically convince Republicans that he invented guns, they would line up to have the Second Amendment repealed.

The last line..... Nail on the head!!!