Weak links in Obamacare -- Know some? Share them.

[MMC]

I only found out a few days ago that FOX has legions/binders of paid posters.

No lean to Heritage, they're on the far-right fringe with you.

Of course Heritage is THE leading authority on how House members vote.
You haven't noticed the House can't get any bills passed this year without Heritage's approval.

Try again.....the Neo Cons, don't listen to Heritage.

Have you figured out what another problem Obamacare brings to those it needs to force itself upon?

 

[Linc]

Can't wait till the computer wonk gets it right before the election..

Try again.....the Neo Cons, don't listen to Heritage..
Have you figured out what another problem Obamacare brings to those it needs to force itself upon?

Ask your boy from Canada to keep hope alive by keeping his mouth open .

 

[MMC]

Can't wait till the computer wonk gets it right before the election..

Ask your boy from Canada to keep hope alive by keeping his mouth open .

Well.....What do you have to say about them knowing ahead of time that there was more than just some computer glitch problems?

Btw I think you were mixed up on who was out looking for Hope.

 

[Perotista]

Here's some I see . . .

1. In 2014, the fine for not having health insurance is $95 per adult. Those who don't want insurance will pay the fine.
2. In 2015, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $325 per adult or 2% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
3. In 2016, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $695 per adult or 2.5% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
4. Who won't buy the insurance? People who simply don't want it...who think they are bullet-proof (and, of course, they can quickly sign up if they find out they aren't)...and people who think they can't afford it (and, again, they can quickly sign up if it's cheaper than paying their actual bills).
5. One can sign up for the cheapest version of Obamacare and then buy a better plan as soon as they find out it's cheaper than actually paying their incurred bills.

Insurance isn't designed to work that way. These shortcomings must be fixed or the program will fall under its own weight, in my opinion.

What other weak links do YOU notice?

So much of what I see from either side is theory based. People will do this or people won't do that. No one really knows. I do think when the law was first passed the Democrats thought people would behave exactly as they had prior to the law. But people adjust and change their habits, so to do companies, business, insurance, doctors etc. Which we already seen a whole lot of adjustment going on. There will be more as more parts of the law take effect. Perhaps the best thing is just to let it take effect and let's see how many adjustments people make and how their habits change.

It all gets confusing to me, one side says this is what most people will do and the other say no they won't, they will do this. But I don't think anyone really knows. they just banter theories around.

But if I see one major draw back in the ACA it is probably one of its most appreciated and liked mandate. That is keeping your children on your policy until they are 26. Yet it is that exact age group who are suppose to pay and buy the insurance, the 20 somethings to pay for those with pre-existing conditions and the older folks. That almost seems like a catch 22 to me, expecting the very young and healthy to fork over the premiums yet they are allowed to remain on their parents policy.

So who knows what will happen, all I know is I don't know and there is more than enough theories out there to confuse the heck out of me.

 

[MMC]

So much of what I see from either side is theory based. People will do this or people won't do that. No one really knows. I do think when the law was first passed the Democrats thought people would behave exactly as they had prior to the law. But people adjust and change their habits, so to do companies, business, insurance, doctors etc. Which we already seen a whole lot of adjustment going on. There will be more as more parts of the law take effect. Perhaps the best thing is just to let it take effect and let's see how many adjustments people make and how their habits change.

It all gets confusing to me, one side says this is what most people will do and the other say no they won't, they will do this. But I don't think anyone really knows. they just banter theories around.

But if I see one major draw back in the ACA it is probably one of its most appreciated and liked mandate. That is keeping your children on your policy until they are 26. Yet it is that exact age group who are suppose to pay and buy the insurance, the 20 somethings to pay for those with pre-existing conditions and the older folks. That almost seems like a catch 22 to me, expecting the very young and healthy to fork over the premiums yet they are allowed to remain on their parents policy.

So who knows what will happen, all I know is I don't know and there is more than enough theories out there to confuse the heck out of me.

This might put some perspective into it Pero.

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves.....

Snowe voted for the Democrats' health bill to get it out of committee, but it never won her support on the floor. You see, Snowe foresaw Obamacare's big problem. As she wrote (my italics), "not one single member in Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- could answer whether the newly created health insurance plans would be affordable , yet we hurtled headlong toward a final vote on a monumental bill affecting every American."

In a savvier Republicans-ruined-Obamacare argument, Washington Post wonk-blogger Ezra Klein contends that the Democratic part of Obamacare -- Medicaid, which is single-payer -- works. But: "The part of Obamacare that's troubled is the part Democrats lifted from Republican policymakers. It's the part that tries to integrate private insurance companies with government systems in order to create a universal insurance system that's subsidized by the state but run by private companies."

Get it? If Obamacare fails, it's because Obamacare is a Republican plan.

Now, I won't deny that two decades ago, some conservative think tank swell came up with the term "individual mandate" -- which allowed other wonks to try to pin the tail on the elephant. But if liberals have to fish for a 1989 Heritage Foundation policy paper that had no Republican support in 2008, 2009 or 2012 to establish Republican paternity for the Affordable Care Act, that tells you one thing: They think Obamacare won't work.

The latest iteration of Democrats-on-the-cross works like this: Obamacare hasn't delivered the big savings promised by the president -- $2,500 annually for the average family -- because Democrats ditched the single-payer model to mollify Republicans. In the Los Angeles Times, Harvard professor Jane Mansbridge writes, "The Democratic Party reluctantly adopted RomneyCare, a.k.a. Obamacare, to get Republican approval." What's more, House Republicans "coerced the Democrats into adopting a Republican health insurance reform plan."

A reader emails me, "The Republicans who hate Obama would not permit the creation of a decent single payer plan which would allow private insurance carriers to participate on a competitive uniform benefit program." Another insists, "We wanted single payer! The GOP did not -- that was the compromise, and it was one of many from this president.".....snip~

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves - Debra J. Saunders - Page 2

 

[Perotista]

This might put some perspective into it Pero.

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves.....

Snowe voted for the Democrats' health bill to get it out of committee, but it never won her support on the floor. You see, Snowe foresaw Obamacare's big problem. As she wrote (my italics), "not one single member in Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- could answer whether the newly created health insurance plans would be affordable , yet we hurtled headlong toward a final vote on a monumental bill affecting every American."

In a savvier Republicans-ruined-Obamacare argument, Washington Post wonk-blogger Ezra Klein contends that the Democratic part of Obamacare -- Medicaid, which is single-payer -- works. But: "The part of Obamacare that's troubled is the part Democrats lifted from Republican policymakers. It's the part that tries to integrate private insurance companies with government systems in order to create a universal insurance system that's subsidized by the state but run by private companies."

Get it? If Obamacare fails, it's because Obamacare is a Republican plan.

Now, I won't deny that two decades ago, some conservative think tank swell came up with the term "individual mandate" -- which allowed other wonks to try to pin the tail on the elephant. But if liberals have to fish for a 1989 Heritage Foundation policy paper that had no Republican support in 2008, 2009 or 2012 to establish Republican paternity for the Affordable Care Act, that tells you one thing: They think Obamacare won't work.

The latest iteration of Democrats-on-the-cross works like this: Obamacare hasn't delivered the big savings promised by the president -- $2,500 annually for the average family -- because Democrats ditched the single-payer model to mollify Republicans. In the Los Angeles Times, Harvard professor Jane Mansbridge writes, "The Democratic Party reluctantly adopted RomneyCare, a.k.a. Obamacare, to get Republican approval." What's more, House Republicans "coerced the Democrats into adopting a Republican health insurance reform plan."

A reader emails me, "The Republicans who hate Obama would not permit the creation of a decent single payer plan which would allow private insurance carriers to participate on a competitive uniform benefit program." Another insists, "We wanted single payer! The GOP did not -- that was the compromise, and it was one of many from this president.".....snip~

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves - Debra J. Saunders - Page 2

The one thing I am sure of is Obamacare is all Democrat and all Obama. All one had to do was watch the debates and then the votes on C-SPAN with no spin. Senator Snowe was one of only a few senators from both sides of the aisle I respect. I also respect her colleague Senator Collins. I am beginning to wonder about all this, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senator Chambliss's seat, he is retiring Michelle Nunn came out today joining the other six or seven senators calling for a years delay in the mandates. I would at this moment in time give Michelle Nunn a 50-50 shot of winning Georgia's open senate seat.

But I wonder if the president and Senator Reid can really allow the delay? I wonder that because early on in the shut down the republicans dropped their defunding rider and pushed for the delay instead. Both were emphatic, no delay and to grant one would or could prove the Republicans right. That would be like admitting even though it was the Republicans who started the shut down, it was the democrats who were responsible for continuing it. If the delay is granted, I can see a steady stream of Republicans coming on TV with a "See I told you so, we were right all along," attitude and it would be their turn to rub it in. We'll see what happens, but if the web site is up and working good come 30 November as now promised, perhaps a delay won't be needed and I am just speculating.

 

[cpwill]

This might put some perspective into it Pero.

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves.....

Snowe voted for the Democrats' health bill to get it out of committee, but it never won her support on the floor. You see, Snowe foresaw Obamacare's big problem. As she wrote (my italics), "not one single member in Congress -- Republican or Democrat -- could answer whether the newly created health insurance plans would be affordable , yet we hurtled headlong toward a final vote on a monumental bill affecting every American."

In a savvier Republicans-ruined-Obamacare argument, Washington Post wonk-blogger Ezra Klein contends that the Democratic part of Obamacare -- Medicaid, which is single-payer -- works. But: "The part of Obamacare that's troubled is the part Democrats lifted from Republican policymakers. It's the part that tries to integrate private insurance companies with government systems in order to create a universal insurance system that's subsidized by the state but run by private companies."

Get it? If Obamacare fails, it's because Obamacare is a Republican plan.

Now, I won't deny that two decades ago, some conservative think tank swell came up with the term "individual mandate" -- which allowed other wonks to try to pin the tail on the elephant. But if liberals have to fish for a 1989 Heritage Foundation policy paper that had no Republican support in 2008, 2009 or 2012 to establish Republican paternity for the Affordable Care Act, that tells you one thing: They think Obamacare won't work.

The latest iteration of Democrats-on-the-cross works like this: Obamacare hasn't delivered the big savings promised by the president -- $2,500 annually for the average family -- because Democrats ditched the single-payer model to mollify Republicans. In the Los Angeles Times, Harvard professor Jane Mansbridge writes, "The Democratic Party reluctantly adopted RomneyCare, a.k.a. Obamacare, to get Republican approval." What's more, House Republicans "coerced the Democrats into adopting a Republican health insurance reform plan."

A reader emails me, "The Republicans who hate Obama would not permit the creation of a decent single payer plan which would allow private insurance carriers to participate on a competitive uniform benefit program." Another insists, "We wanted single payer! The GOP did not -- that was the compromise, and it was one of many from this president.".....snip~

Lies the Dems Tell Themselves - Debra J. Saunders - Page 2

That's a pretty entertaining piece. Obamacare was negotiated 100% between and by Democrats. "oh we didn't get a public option!". Hey, blame your centrist Democrat Senators. "we didn't get single-payer!" Yeah. Because Democrats wouldn't vote for it.

 

[MMC]

The one thing I am sure of is Obamacare is all Democrat and all Obama. All one had to do was watch the debates and then the votes on C-SPAN with no spin. Senator Snowe was one of only a few senators from both sides of the aisle I respect. I also respect her colleague Senator Collins. I am beginning to wonder about all this, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senator Chambliss's seat, he is retiring Michelle Nunn came out today joining the other six or seven senators calling for a years delay in the mandates. I would at this moment in time give Michelle Nunn a 50-50 shot of winning Georgia's open senate seat.

But I wonder if the president and Senator Reid can really allow the delay? I wonder that because early on in the shut down the republicans dropped their defunding rider and pushed for the delay instead. Both were emphatic, no delay and to grant one would or could prove the Republicans right. That would be like admitting even though it was the Republicans who started the shut down, it was the democrats who were responsible for continuing it. If the delay is granted, I can see a steady stream of Republicans coming on TV with a "See I told you so, we were right all along," attitude and it would be their turn to rub it in. We'll see what happens, but if the web site is up and working good come 30 November as now promised, perhaps a delay won't be needed and I am just speculating.

Mornin Pero. :2wave: Which website is that. As of this morning Dot Gov is down and has even more problems. As now Verizon's people stated that the system is not safe. When Admin officials were asked when they think it would be back up. There has been no answer.

Prepare to see more Democrats come out and publicly cry to delay. So what did you think of that written piece?

 

[MMC]

That's a pretty entertaining piece. Obamacare was negotiated 100% between and by Democrats. "oh we didn't get a public option!". Hey, blame your centrist Democrat Senators. "we didn't get single-payer!" Yeah. Because Democrats wouldn't vote for it.

Mornin CW. :2wave: Yet who was it that wanted to cross state barriers with Insurance? what do you think about Snowe Admitting all of them knew that.....they were implementing a program that they DIDN"T know if it would save people money? Nor keep people Insured.

Didn't the CBO also point out that under obamacare 16 million(current number) would end up not being covered?

 

[Perotista]

Mornin Pero. :2wave: Which website is that. As of this morning Dot Gov is down and has even more problems. As now Verizon's people stated that the system is not safe. When Admin officials were asked when they think it would be back up. There has been no answer.

Prepare to see more Democrats come out and publicly cry to delay. So what did you think of that written piece?

The ACA web site. It was on the news yesterday that the president said it would be up and working by 30 November. I really haven't heard anything else besides that.

 

[MMC]

The ACA web site. It was on the news yesterday that the president said it would be up and working by 30 November. I really haven't heard anything else besides that.

Yeah, until they had more problems yesterday. According to what they are reporting. Site is down and now has affected some state sites and people can't get on and they don't know when they can get it up.


Obamacare malfunction shuts down application tool.....

A malfunction in key technology behind the Obamacare website left users unable to apply for health coverage.

Joanne Peters, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said Sunday a vendor networking issue at Verizon subsidiary Terremark was to blame. Peters said the vendor had "experienced a failure in a networking component," and the attempted fix crashed the system.

Neither HHS nor Verizon responded Monday morning to CNNMoney's questions about the status of efforts to fix the problem.

The outage was the latest issue to hit the troubled HealthCare.gov. Since a disappointing debut on Oct. 1, some users have been unable to create accounts or sign up for coverage.

This malfunction impacted the "Data Services Hub," which connects the website to IRS and other databases used to determine eligibility. On Saturday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius touted the "hub" as one of the Obamacare technologies that was working.

The malfunction not only impacted the troubled federal website, but also hit some state-based exchanges. Peters said the problem was "likely impacting several other sites," and Kathleen Tallarita of the Connecticut insurance marketplace said some customers there could not sign up. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia elected to set up their own exchanges, which have been largely error-free.....snip~

Obamacare malfunction shuts down application tool - Oct. 27, 2013

 

[cpwill]

Mornin CW. :2wave: Yet who was it that wanted to cross state barriers with Insurance? what do you think about Snowe Admitting all of them knew that.....they were implementing a program that they DIDN"T know if it would save people money? Nor keep people Insured.

Didn't the CBO also point out that under obamacare 16 million(current number) would end up not being covered?

Yeah. For the people (even under ridiculously optimistic estimates) that they are actually adding to the insurance rolls, they could have saved half the money just by buying them all insurance.

 

[JumpinJack]

Mornin Maggie.

This is another of his wink Links. Its from a Blogger referencing the Washington Post.


Thanks to this Washington Post article, we now know that Obamacare isn’t just flawed, it’s fatally flawed. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Want an appointment with kidney specialist Adam Weinstein of Easton, Md.? If you’re a senior covered by Medicare, the wait is eight weeks.

How about a checkup from geriatric specialist Michael Trahos? Expect to see him every six months: The Alexandria-based doctor has been limiting most of his Medicare patients to twice yearly rather than the quarterly checkups he considers ideal for the elderly. Still, at least he’ll see you. Top-ranked primary care doctor Linda Yau is one of three physicians with the District’s Foxhall Internists group who recently announced they will no longer be accepting Medicare patients.

“It’s not easy. But you realize you either do this or you don’t stay in business,” she said.

Doctors across the country describe similar decisions, complaining that they’ve been forced to shift away from Medicare toward higher-paying, privately insured or self-paying patients in response to years of penny-pinching by Congress.

And that’s not even taking into account a long-postponed rate-setting method that is on track to slash Medicare’s payment rates to doctors by 23 percent Dec. 1. Known as the Sustainable Growth Rate and adopted by Congress in 1997, it was intended to keep Medicare spending on doctors in line with the economy’s overall growth rate. But after the SGR formula led to a 4.8 percent cut in doctors’ pay rates in 2002, Congress has chosen to put off the ever steeper cuts called for by the formula ever since.....snip~

Obamacare’s Weak Link Exposed

I'm from a small south Louisiana city originally. My relatives still live there. Long waits for mediocre providers is the norm. So that's why MANY people in small cities make appts with and drive to the nearest large city for important health care, such as cancer treatment, diagnosis for something severe, etc. Regardless of type of coverage. And for continuing treatment for, say, cancer, it is the norm to make an appt weeks or months in advance; you make the next appt at the time of your current appt. No problemo.

Long waits such as you describe .....well, you do realize that is a lot better than it is for millions of people in America, the richest country in the world? For millions, there is no seeing the doctor at all, since they can't afford it. They just suffer, try to get by, do home remedies, and then die younger than their wealthier counterparts (the life expectancy that you keep hearing has increased so much? Well, it has not increased for poor people in a long time.)

I suppose this long wait seems unacceptable to someone who is used to being treated a little better than the norm. Not that a long wait is a good thing. But now that there are so many people in the world (remember that the religious right wants people to have as many babies as possible)...there will be longer and longer waits for everything, as the world gets more crowded.

 

[MMC]

I'm from a small south Louisiana city originally. My relatives still live there. Long waits for mediocre providers is the norm. So that's why MANY people in small cities make appts with and drive to the nearest large city for important health care, such as cancer treatment, diagnosis for something severe, etc. Regardless of type of coverage. And for continuing treatment for, say, cancer, it is the norm to make an appt weeks or months in advance; you make the next appt at the time of your current appt. No problemo.

Long waits such as you describe .....well, you do realize that is a lot better than it is for millions of people in America, the richest country in the world? For millions, there is no seeing the doctor at all, since they can't afford it. They just suffer, try to get by, do home remedies, and then die younger than their wealthier counterparts (the life expectancy that you keep hearing has increased so much? Well, it has not increased for poor people in a long time.)

I suppose this long wait seems unacceptable to someone who is used to being treated a little better than the norm. Not that a long wait is a good thing. But now that there are so many people in the world (remember that the religious right wants people to have as many babies as possible)...there will be longer and longer waits for everything, as the world gets more crowded.

I can understand how you feel.....we get the same here and around the Big City although more options are available.

Yet those that had specific and as Jay Carney put it.....sub standard policies. Which cannot be accepted due to worded Law. Will now be without any insurance. I doubt many think that these are Rich and wealthy people. Many working as Independent Contractors that struggle week to week.

Now knowing Obamacare is failing upon its own.....people are realizing that they were lied to not only about keeping ones insurance but about the cost that people will pay.

 

[JumpinJack]

Here's some I see . . .

1. In 2014, the fine for not having health insurance is $95 per adult. Those who don't want insurance will pay the fine.
2. In 2015, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $325 per adult or 2% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
3. In 2016, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $695 per adult or 2.5% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
4. Who won't buy the insurance? People who simply don't want it...who think they are bullet-proof (and, of course, they can quickly sign up if they find out they aren't)...and people who think they can't afford it (and, again, they can quickly sign up if it's cheaper than paying their actual bills).
5. One can sign up for the cheapest version of Obamacare and then buy a better plan as soon as they find out it's cheaper than actually paying their incurred bills.

Insurance isn't designed to work that way. These shortcomings must be fixed or the program will fall under its own weight, in my opinion.

What other weak links do YOU notice?

One of the biggest problems, IMO, and one which directly affects the high premiums being quoted, is the inability of people to tailor a policy to their own needs. In other words, all the policies I saw had the same coverage. Basically, it's one policy, with the only differences being amount of deductible, out of pocket maximums, and coinsurance amounts. THIS KEEPS THE POLICIES ARTIFICIALLY HIGH, since most people are required to buy and pay for coverage that is unneeded (like a single man having to buy and pay for maternity coverage, baby care), and myself having to pay for that and inpatient drug rehab, things I will never use.

But the insurance companies are reaping profits for those things that will never be used, although they charge high premiums for it, because the ins. co. HAS TO include possible payments for those coverages in its premiums.

As for whether there will be refunds on the high premiums (there is a cap on Obamacare policiy premiums, based on how much they pay out in claims), that remains to be seen.

Even though rates might be higher, I SHOULD be able to get the premium down some by buying a policy that doesn't contain coverages that I don't need or am not likely to need. Do I really need INFINITE coverage? Infinite, as in "there is no limit to the coverage"? As in $20 Million dollars or more? That's what the ins co. can use to base its premiums on. Although I will never need that. (I do mean I will never need that....the plug will be pulled, or I will do myself in, if I get into such a state that I need a fortune to be kept artificially alive).

 

[JumpinJack]

I can understand how you feel.....we get the same here and around the Big City although more options are available.

Yet those that had specific and as Jay Carney put it.....sub standard policies. Which cannot be accepted due to worded Law. Will now be without any insurance. I doubt many think that these are Rich and wealthy people. Many working as Independent Contractors that struggle weak to weak.

Now knowing Obamacare is failing upon its own.....people are realizing that they were lied to not only about keeping ones insurance but about the cost that people will pay.

I agree with you about the so-called substandard policies. Just who is the one to call those policies substandard? Now, we don't have a choice to buy a lesser coverage policy (one that will more meet our needs). I am over 50. ALL the policies open to me are basically the SAME policy, just with different deductible amounts. But it's the same policy. And they ALL include maternity care and inpatient drug rehab coverage. Maternity coverage for ME? Inpatient drug rehab coverage? I barely take aspirin!

The ACA has gone too far. It looks like insurance companies wrote this law.

I would be willing to look at another reasonable plan by anyone. I haven't heard of one, but I'd be willing to consider it.

 

[MMC]

I agree with you about the so-called substandard policies. Just who is the one to call those policies substandard? Now, we don't have a choice to buy a lesser coverage policy (one that will more meet our needs). I am over 50. ALL the policies open to me are basically the SAME policy, just with different deductible amounts. But it's the same policy. And they ALL include maternity care and inpatient drug rehab coverage. Maternity coverage for ME? Inpatient drug rehab coverage? I barely take aspirin!

The ACA has gone too far. It looks like insurance companies wrote this law.

I would be willing to look at another reasonable plan by anyone. I haven't heard of one, but I'd be willing to consider it.

I know Ryan says he was working on one with the Democrat White out of California. Then that Ryan and another Democrat had something going. Other than that.....some have mentioned to Repubs that people need to start to get something ready.

As Obamacare will get worse and then start costing us more that they thought.....the thing is. The Democrats and Team Obama as well as himself. Say it is here to stay.

Do you think that will hold true now?

 

[The Man]

One of the biggest problems, IMO, and one which directly affects the high premiums being quoted, is the inability of people to tailor a policy to their own needs. In other words, all the policies I saw had the same coverage. Basically, it's one policy, with the only differences being amount of deductible, out of pocket maximums, and coinsurance amounts. THIS KEEPS THE POLICIES ARTIFICIALLY HIGH, since most people are required to buy and pay for coverage that is unneeded (like a single man having to buy and pay for maternity coverage, baby care), and myself having to pay for that and inpatient drug rehab, things I will never use.

But the insurance companies are reaping profits for those things that will never be used, although they charge high premiums for it, because the ins. co. HAS TO include possible payments for those coverages in its premiums.

As for whether there will be refunds on the high premiums (there is a cap on Obamacare policiy premiums, based on how much they pay out in claims), that remains to be seen.

Even though rates might be higher, I SHOULD be able to get the premium down some by buying a policy that doesn't contain coverages that I don't need or am not likely to need. Do I really need INFINITE coverage? Infinite, as in "there is no limit to the coverage"? As in $20 Million dollars or more? That's what the ins co. can use to base its premiums on. Although I will never need that. (I do mean I will never need that....the plug will be pulled, or I will do myself in, if I get into such a state that I need a fortune to be kept artificially alive).

I wouldn't be so sure you won't use the rehab benefit coverage. This whole debacle is more and more likely to drive us all to drink and get high by the day.

 

[Grim17]

Here's some I see . . .

1. In 2014, the fine for not having health insurance is $95 per adult. Those who don't want insurance will pay the fine.
2. In 2015, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $325 per adult or 2% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
3. In 2016, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $695 per adult or 2.5% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
4. Who won't buy the insurance? People who simply don't want it...who think they are bullet-proof (and, of course, they can quickly sign up if they find out they aren't)...and people who think they can't afford it (and, again, they can quickly sign up if it's cheaper than paying their actual bills).
5. One can sign up for the cheapest version of Obamacare and then buy a better plan as soon as they find out it's cheaper than actually paying their incurred bills.

Insurance isn't designed to work that way. These shortcomings must be fixed or the program will fall under its own weight, in my opinion.

What other weak links do YOU notice?

Just the stuff from page one, until the last page... Other than that, it's perfect.

<sarcasm off>

 

[MMC]

Just the stuff from page one, until the last page... Other than that, it's perfect.

<sarcasm off>

Heya Grim.....don't you worry. There will be more.

All the King's Horses and all the King's Men.....Couldn't put Humpty, back together again. :lol:

 

[MMC]

Looks like the Obamacare site went down again last night.....the ongoing problems just keep continuing.

In the mean time Obama plans to run to Boston today just so he can explain how beneficial Obamacare is and what benefits it has. Guess he hasn't been paying attention to the news much. :lol:

 

[MMC]

This is another Maggie.....

Health Policy Briefs

Also, Check the resources..

Resources


Darling, Helen, "Health Care Reform: Perspectives from Large Employers," Health Affairs 29, no. 6 (2010): 1220-4.

US Department of the Treasury, US Department of Labor, US Department of Health and Human Services, "Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," Federal Register 75, no. 116 (June 17, 2010): 34538-70.

Fernandez, Bernadette, "Grandfathered Health Plans under PPACA (PL 111-148)," Washington (DC): Congressional Research Service; April 7, 2010.

Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research and Educational Trust, Employer Health Benefits Survey, 2009 and 2010 editions.

Jost, Timothy, "Implementing Health Reform: Grandfathered Plans," Health Affairs Blog, June 15, 2010.

Mercer, "Even as Reform Pushes Up Benefit Cost, Employers Will Take Steps to Hold 2011 Increase to 5.9%," Press release, September 8, 2010.

Rosenbaum, Sara, "Health Insurance Reforms and 'Grandfathered Plans,'?" Health Reform GPS (George Washington University and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation), June 28, 2010.

US Department of Health and Human Services, "Keeping the Health Plan You Have: The Affordable Care Act and 'Grandfathered' Health Plans," March 23, 2010.

 

[MMC]

Another one Maggie, is......all this week Obama announced they would be taking down the site at night. Told people to call the Telephone numbers. But here is another of Obama's unthoughtout plan. People calling thru on the phone have to give their info to a counselor. Who just happens to be at a computer so they can imput the info. Due to the site being down. So that is a crock that they can just get thru and get them enrolled. So they are still waiting.

 

[Deuce]

Here's some I see . . .

1. In 2014, the fine for not having health insurance is $95 per adult. Those who don't want insurance will pay the fine.
2. In 2015, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $325 per adult or 2% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
3. In 2016, the fine for not having health insurance is the greater of $695 per adult or 2.5% of income. Those who don't want insurance will still pay the fine.
4. Who won't buy the insurance? People who simply don't want it...who think they are bullet-proof (and, of course, they can quickly sign up if they find out they aren't)...and people who think they can't afford it (and, again, they can quickly sign up if it's cheaper than paying their actual bills).
5. One can sign up for the cheapest version of Obamacare and then buy a better plan as soon as they find out it's cheaper than actually paying their incurred bills.

Insurance isn't designed to work that way. These shortcomings must be fixed or the program will fall under its own weight, in my opinion.

What other weak links do YOU notice?

#5 is inaccurate. Doesn't work that way.