Obamacare a Smashing Success

[ttwtt78640]

Why don't you ask them what they mean by "too much money?" Anyone, regardless of income, can get a plan on the exchange. Subsidies are available for those earning lower than 400% of the poverty rate, which is close to $100,000 a year. So, unless these part-time employees earn $100,000 a year, they can even get subsidies.

PPACA is nearly not that simple. While there is an upper limit on income for PPACA exchange subsidies there is also a lower income limit (100% or 133% of the FPL) - under which you must use Medicaid instead but the state is not required to offer you Medicaid.

 

[Greenbeard]

PPACA is nearly not that simple. While there is an upper limit on income for PPACA exchange subsidies there is also a lower income limit (100% or 133% of the FPL) - under which you must use Medicaid instead but the state is not required to offer you Medicaid.

True, but Connecticut certainly does--they were the first state to expand Medicaid, way back in 2010.

 

[lifeisshort]

We all know there is a coverage gap and that the GOP is to blame.

The GOP? Not Bush?:lol: Someone is always to blame for Obama's failures.

 

[Greenbeard]

The GOP? Not Bush?:lol: Someone is always to blame for Obama's failures.

The leadership of 21 states, in this case.

 

[lifeisshort]

The leadership of 21 states, in this case.

Obama tried to dump people that Obamacare won't cover onto states and some states refused. Your point is?

 

[sangha]

The leadership of 21 states, in this case.

Almost identical to the "red state - blue state" map

 

[MTAtech]

Obama tried to dump people that Obamacare won't cover onto states and some states refused. Your point is?

What are you babbling about? The federal government is paying for state Medicaid expansion. What we really have is Republican state leaders who hate President Obama more than they care about their own people. They'd rather reject federal money that could help the poor in their states instead of signing onto OBamacare.

 

[lifeisshort]

What are you babbling about? The federal government is paying for state Medicaid expansion. What we really have is Republican state leaders who hate President Obama more than they care about their own people. They'd rather reject federal money that could help the poor in their states instead of signing onto OBamacare.

They are only paying for it short term, that is the catch and that is why many governors are saying no way.

 

[VanceMack]

Lets see...an opinion piece declares it is a success so it 'must' be so.

Meanwhile...

After being lied to about their existing plans, many millions of previously insured citizens were forced to buy into the ACA, an act which swelled the previously dismal numbers of enroll and is toured as a 'success'.
The ACA's grand plan is to expand Medicare/Medicaid, creating a greater draw on ERs
The key provisions of the ACA have caused so much fear in those that passed the legislation that they had to issue exemptions to their supporters and ultimately, suspend its implementation.

Huzzah....

 

[calamity]

The GOP? Not Bush?:lol: Someone is always to blame for Obama's failures.

There is no coverage gap in any of the states who expanded Medicaid as prescribed by the AHCA. The only states with such gaps are GOP controlled. Who are you trying to fool? No one but the Right Wing choir buys your BS.

 

[calamity]

Lets see...an opinion piece declares it is a success so it 'must' be so.

Meanwhile...

After being lied to about their existing plans, many millions of previously insured citizens were forced to buy into the ACA, an act which swelled the previously dismal numbers of enroll and is toured as a 'success'.
The ACA's grand plan is to expand Medicare/Medicaid, creating a greater draw on ERs
The key provisions of the ACA have caused so much fear in those that passed the legislation that they had to issue exemptions to their supporters and ultimately, suspend its implementation.

Huzzah....

The propaganda campaign against the ACA is a beautiful thing to behold. It's so effective that I personally know several people with children who rather pay the fine than sign up, this even though they qualify for 100% subsidy if only they logged on to the web site. But, these are the poor white Republicans who get their information from Rush and Fox News. So, I am not surprised that they are completely ignorant.

 

[MTAtech]

They are only paying for it short term, that is the catch and that is why many governors are saying no way.

The Federal government will pay 100% until 2017, when they pay 95%. Then, in 2020, the federal government will pay 90%. The reason Republican governors are declining is not the cost.

 

[MTAtech]

Lets see...an opinion piece declares it is a success so it 'must' be so.

Meanwhile...

After being lied to about their existing plans, many millions of previously insured citizens were forced to buy into the ACA, an act which swelled the previously dismal numbers of enroll and is toured as a 'success'.
The ACA's grand plan is to expand Medicare/Medicaid, creating a greater draw on ERs
The key provisions of the ACA have caused so much fear in those that passed the legislation that they had to issue exemptions to their supporters and ultimately, suspend its implementation.

Huzzah....

Prior to the ACA, people who had no health coverage would wait too long for treatment and then use ERs as primary care, because an ER is required to accept all patients. Now that the poor have access to expanded Medicaid, they can go to doctor offices instead of expensive ERs.

 

[imagep]

Can someone explain something for me? Maybe it depends by state....but there are several employees where I work who don't have health insurance yet. When asked why they didn't get government insurance, the response was the same...they tried, but they make too much money.

And of course, being part time (which now means less than 30 hours per week), they don't get company insurance. And it's not like they make so much that they can afford a personal plan...


I haven't really looked into this, because I don't like headaches, and it doesn't really affect me...but is this how it/s being done? By pay scale? And if so, doesn't there seem to be a gap...or are those employees just stupid?

I suspect that a lot of the time they are just plain stupid. Millions of people who would qualify for subsidized insurance never bothered to check, maybe because they are too apathethic, maybe because they are too proud, and maybe because they are just to stupid.

One guy I was talking to was saying that he could afford insurance, but that his sister who had three kids and a minimum wage job couldn't afford it. I asked him if she had gone to the government website to see if she could afford it, he had no idea. He is just assuming that she can't afford it, with no knowledge of if she had even checked. My Obamacare insurance is about $250/mth (unsubsidized), yet I have heard so many people telling me that they cant afford their insurance policy because it's much more expensive than that. Part of the beauty of the healthcare.gov site is that you can instantly price compare between providers and policies, and if they are cheaper than your current policy, you can switch.

All I can say is that if someones insurance company jacked up your rates, then maybe it's time to price shop and find a cheaper rate with another company. this isn't really that difficult, it can be done in a few minutes.

 

[lifeisshort]

There is no coverage gap in any of the states who expanded Medicaid as prescribed by the AHCA. The only states with such gaps are GOP controlled. Who are you trying to fool? No one but the Right Wing choir buys your BS.

The subsidy given to states to increase Medicaid is short term and meant to get good numbers for obamacare by luring state governors into getting on board for "free". The dem govs are playing along and their states will suffer mightily when those fed subsidies go away. The states refusing the short term handout are acting responsibly for their citizens and Obamacare was supposed to insure those that states would not. As you can see that is not happening.

 

[lifeisshort]

The Federal government will pay 100% until 2017, when they pay 95%. Then, in 2020, the federal government will pay 90%. The reason Republican governors are declining is not the cost.

Do you have a source for those numbers?

 

[MTAtech]

Do you have a source for those numbers?

It's common knowledge, but here:
Daily Briefing primer: ACA's Medicaid expansion | The Advisory Board Daily Briefing
and here too:
ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion

 

[imagep]

Republicans set the bar for Obamacare so low that it doesn't actually have to have great results to be "a smashing success", it just doesn't have to collapse our economy or ruin our healthcare system.

 

[sangha]

The subsidy given to states to increase Medicaid is short term and meant to get good numbers for obamacare by luring state governors into getting on board for "free". The dem govs are playing along and their states will suffer mightily when those fed subsidies go away. The states refusing the short term handout are acting responsibly for their citizens and Obamacare was supposed to insure those that states would not. As you can see that is not happening.

ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion

While states like Florida and Colorado say that a 3% increase in spending is too much, states like Michigan are showing that the States can actually save money by adopting the Medicaid expansion.

The nonprofit Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation projected the net costs of Michigan expanding Medicaid under the health system reform law. In all three scenarios of enrollment uptake assumed by the researchers, the state would reduce both overall spending and the numbers of uninsured residents. Figures represent the state’s 10-year cost savings, in millions, under moderate projections for the enrollment of newly Medicaid-eligible residents in 2014, the expansion’s first year.

Yes, when the feds share of the costs is reduced to 90%, the states will "suffer mightily" with lowered costs and fewer uninsured

Also, it's hypocritical to complain that ACA didn't cover enough people while opposing Medicaid expansions.

 

[GBFAN]

The cost of insurance is calculated before subsidies. But nice try though.

Also, Obamacare was designed with special taxes that fund subsidies and Medicare expansion.

It really is interesting watching conservatives grasp for straws in their attempt to deny Obamacare successful, after all their predictions ended up being wrong.

Is that grape koolaid? Or cherry?

 

[calamity]

The subsidy given to states to increase Medicaid is short term and meant to get good numbers for obamacare by luring state governors into getting on board for "free". The dem govs are playing along and their states will suffer mightily when those fed subsidies go away. The states refusing the short term handout are acting responsibly for their citizens and Obamacare was supposed to insure those that states would not. As you can see that is not happening.

Nonsense. Giving the state's poorest and most unhealthy people access to healthcare, which includes preventative care, saves a state money in the long run.

 

[imagep]

Nonsense. Giving the state's poorest and most unhealthy people access to healthcare, which includes preventative care, saves a state money in the long run.

Nonsense. It's way cheaper just to let them die fast.

Anyhow, I have never figured out how a doctor can give anyone preventative care. The only preventative care that there is is healthy eating, exercise, and refraining from the excessive use of tobacco, alcohol and other recreational drugs - and there are no pills or shots for those things. All other treatment is pretty much care for existing disease, like high blood pressure or diabeties.

And while screenings are certainly a plus for the individual, they have proven not to be cost effective in the aggregate. Like maybe we screen all women for breast cancer, and maybe one out of a thousand is found to have an early stage of breast cancer, while that may be great for that one individual, the cost of screening a thousand people exceeds any savings of catching breast cancer in an early stage.

All that said, I still believe that in a country where we have ample medical resources, and the aggregate economic ability to provide everyone with medical care, everyone should be able to have the financial ability to receive whatever care they need, even if that means some sort of income/wealth redistribution (including socialized insurance or health care).

 

[calamity]

Nonsense. It's way cheaper just to let them die fast.

Anyhow, I have never figured out how a doctor can give anyone preventative care. The only preventative care that there is is healthy eating, exercise, and refraining from the excessive use of tobacco, alcohol and other recreational drugs - and there are no pills or shots for those things. All other treatment is pretty much care for existing disease, like high blood pressure or diabeties.

And while screenings are certainly a plus for the individual, they have proven not to be cost effective in the aggregate. Like maybe we screen all women for breast cancer, and maybe one out of a thousand is found to have an early stage of breast cancer, while that may be great for that one individual, the cost of screening a thousand people exceeds any savings of catching breast cancer in an early stage.

All that said, I still believe that in a country where we have ample medical resources, and the aggregate economic ability to provide everyone with medical care, everyone should be able to have the financial ability to receive whatever care they need, even if that means some sort of income/wealth redistribution (including socialized insurance or health care).

Preventative care, as I understand it, is defined as giving vaccines and screening stuff like TB, Hep, diabetes or other blood sugar level abnormalities, blood pressure, pulse and heart rates, triglycerides, pap smears, prostrate exams, colonoscopy,
and what-not.

 

[MTAtech]

The cost of insurance is calculated before subsidies. But nice try though.

Also, Obamacare was designed with special taxes that fund subsidies and Medicare expansion.

It really is interesting watching conservatives grasp for straws in their attempt to deny Obamacare successful, after all their predictions ended up being wrong.

Is that grape koolaid? Or cherry?

You can try to be dismissive, but everything that I said above is true.

The taxes associated with Obamacare are indisputable. Conservatives did, in fact, predict that Obamacare would be a train-wreck failure and nobody would sign up. When the did sign up, they said the young wouldn't sign up. When the young signed up, they said nobody would pay. When they did pay, conservatives said premiums would skyrocket and doctors will quit.

Back in the reality universe, more people are insured than in recent times and premiums will actually decline slightly. Conservatives' ability to be consistently, grossly wrong about Obamacare required special effort. Conservatives will just not acknowledge the program is working due to their rigid ideology and dogmatic anti-government convictions.

 

[KevinKohler]

Preventative care, as I understand it, is defined as giving vaccines and screening stuff like TB, Hep, diabetes or other blood sugar level abnormalities, blood pressure, pulse and heart rates, triglycerides, pap smears, prostrate exams, colonoscopy,
and what-not.

And for that....for simple testing....we needed thousands of pages of law, etc?