Health Care changes

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1 - 1151 of total 1151 in this topic
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Original Post - Oct 12, 2013 - 08:11am PT
Was up?
dirtbag

climber
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:02am PT
really?
5.samadhi

climber
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:05am PT
the government is providing a "marketplace" to monitor prices and force health insurance companies to reduce their premiums based on each individual's income.
5.samadhi

climber
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:35am PT
yeah because here in the USA we pay so much more taxes already than other countries a 2.5-7.5% tax on our income for healthcare is unjust :D :D :D
Sierra Ledge Rat

Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
Oct 12, 2013 - 09:48am PT
The health care insurance companies earned over $12 billion dollars in profits.

They make profits by denying payments and cancelling the insurance of sick people.

With that $12 billion they bought the Republican party and launched a smear campaign to make people think that Obamacare is something that it's not.

Getting everyone into the insurance pool is the most fiscally-responsible strategy for our nation. How can the Republicans object to fiscal responsibility?

Don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare? Guess what genius - you already are. You're paying for other people's health care through a system that is convoluted, inefficient and unfair that does nothing but keep sick people sick, keeps poor people from getting care until they're almost dead, and makes insurance company CEOs rich.

I am a healthy man in my 50s and a small business owner, but I cannot get health insurance at any price. Me, and millions of other like me, are one accident or one major illness away from financial destitution and bankruptcy. How fiscally responsible is that policy? Obamacare will end this travesty.

Credit: Sierra Ledge Rat
Credit: Sierra Ledge Rat
Credit: Sierra Ledge Rat
Credit: Sierra Ledge Rat
Reeotch

Trad climber
4 Corners Area
Oct 12, 2013 - 10:29am PT
In America, which is the dead last developed country to officially establish universal health care, the new health law tries to make every part of the system profitable – for doctors, hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, etc.

And, where are all these profits going to come from? When we allow a for-profit entities into the mix, how is that supposed to make things more affordable? Isn't this like just taking our tax money and giving it to some absurdly rich CEO. That money is not going to health care, its going in to private bank accounts.

But, allowing the government to administer the healthcare system, well that's socialism! What do you call Obamacare? Profitism?
Sierra Ledge Rat

Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
Oct 13, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
And, where are all these profits going to come from? When we allow a for-profit entities into the mix, how is that supposed to make things more affordable? Isn't this like just taking our tax money and giving it to some absurdly rich CEO. That money is not going to health care, its going in to private bank accounts.

Good question.

If you buy into American capitalism, then the partly-line answer is this: When incentivized, private companies can do a better job than government at providing services at an overall lower cost. The incentive is a carrot of guaranteed profits. So it's a win-win situation with people getting better services at an overall lower cost, and the companies providing the services get to become rich.

However, I can tell you from experience (I work in the healthcare field) that capitalism and business models do not work in healthcare. The primary reason is the "Law of Unintended Consequences." Capitalism and business models generate a whole host so extremely harmful motivations that are destroying healthcare.

Example of an extremely harmful motivation? Drug addicts can go to any ER and demand fist-fulls of narcotics, and because they're "customers" like anyone else they walk out with fist fulls of narcotics. If the doctor doesn't give the "customer" what they want, the hospital CEO (with an MBA) terminates the doctor's hospital privileges due to "poor customer service." There thousands and thousands of other examples that clearly show that healthcare is not, and should not be, business. Times are changing.

What worked in the past isn't working anymore, and the business model will certainly lead to the downfall of healthcare. So many people's brains are so entrenched in the idea of capitalism that they are going to ride the capitalism train to hell. They won't even realize their mistakes until they hear Satan himself hollering "Last stop! Please disembark!"










couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2013 - 09:01pm PT



Dirtbag said:
"really? '

Really.



What am I suppose to be doing?




Outside

Trad climber
Truckee
Oct 13, 2013 - 09:31pm PT
Seems to me everyone needs to have insurance , just like for cars, the insured are now paying for the un-insured.
My insurance policy has gone down 15% with Obc.
It's about time !
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 14, 2013 - 12:05am PT
Well my family policy went up 250% so Obamacare is the only option. Obviously the insurance company's way of ditching my family. Looks like I will pay about $7200 more per year and my deducible will go from $2500 to $5000.

So...$10K more per year for the same care ( hopefully). That is approx. 10K that I will not be spending in my community. If my small business does not grow this year, I will likely have to lay off an employee. We will see....

Good times.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2013 - 11:35am PT




So, if you have insurance but haven't registered on the exchanges, when tax time comes, are you paying the penalty because you didn't register?




locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 12:44pm PT


All I know is I did the online stuff and fuked it up royally...

I expect the Feds to be knocking at my door any minute now...

HermitMaster

Social climber
my abode
Oct 14, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
I just signed up my inflatable sheep and got the "Clinton Discount"
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 14, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
Unkown as to why a male may need maternity leave- or pediatric needs..

that's quite a stretch even for you ron.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 01:00pm PT


"I just signed up my inflatable sheep and got the "Clinton Discount"..."...

^^^


and that's your very FIRST post...

No way you're going to turn out to be just another dumb TROLL...

Not even slightly possible...

NO WAY!!!...

No way man!!!...



Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 14, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
too clever to be RJocks or LEB. Not abrasive enough to be Fatty or Coz...

definitely a first time poster just wanting to discuss health care on a climbing website..happens everyday...
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 01:04pm PT


"too clever to be RJocks or LEB. Not abrasive enough to be Fatty or Coz... "...


^^^

I agree...




EDITED:

and it's for sure not AC Crowley...

LOL!!!...



Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 14, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
Yeah, it sucks that more people are going to have health care soon.

How dare we? We are going to stifle health care providers main concern. Profits.

That's un American!
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 03:24pm PT

LOfukingL!!!...

What a line!!!...

"The real "unknown" is how you manage to function in society with the IQ of an insect"...

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 03:36pm PT


Ron I don't know how you handle catching so much sh!t...

I would have caved by now...

LOL!!!...

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Oct 14, 2013 - 03:42pm PT
No, you wouldn't've caved by now!
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 03:42pm PT


^^^

Probably true...

;-)

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 04:29pm PT


"Do you need the same level of help in the real world as you do here?"...


I'm fuking DYING over here!!!...

LMAO!!!...

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 14, 2013 - 04:50pm PT


It only get's harsher and better...

I fuking can't read this thread anymore today...

My head is beginning to hurt from busting up so much...


"Did your mother have any other abortions, or were you the only one?"...


That there is a DOOZY!!!...


LMAO again!!!...
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Oct 14, 2013 - 05:45pm PT
Credit: pyro
keep it going ron!

which state offers the best health care product/package?
HermitMaster

Social climber
my abode
Oct 14, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
yahhhh exactly what a 55 yr old fixed single male needs,,, maternity coverage....FOR HIMSELF..

Ron's discussion seems entirely reasonable......

Why should people be forced to pay for overpriced insurance they will never use?




rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 14, 2013 - 06:16pm PT
What happens if dumb f*#k Ron gets knocked up..? He won't be dissin the ACA then...Will he..?
HermitMaster

Social climber
my abode
Oct 14, 2013 - 06:22pm PT
And once we get rid of the repub party, we'll have it.

Obamacare was won without a single Republican vote. Exactly what the hell are you talking about?

More importantly: Obama didn't give us Universal Healthcare. He gave us a healthcare system where each and every American is expected to purchase over priced and unneeded insurance from private companies.

But, you keep pretending, Smudge.

LOL!!!!!
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
Anyone read it yet?



Vol. 78 Friday,
No. 169 August 30, 2013
Part VI
Department of Health and Human Services
45 CFR Parts 147, 153, 155, et al.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Program Integrity: Exchange,
SHOP, and Eligibility Appeals; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:01 Aug 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\30AUR3.SGM 30AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
54070
Federal Register
/ Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
1
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
Establishment of Exchanges and Qualified Health
Plans; Exchange Standards for Employers, 77 FR
18310 (March 27, 2012).
2
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act;
Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors
and Risk Adjustment, 77 FR 17220 (March 23,
2012).
3
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS
Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2014
and Amendments to the HHS Notice of Benefit and
Payment Parameters for 2014, 78 FR 15410 and
15541 (Mar. 11, 2013).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Parts 147, 153, 155, and 156
[CMS–9957–F]
RIN 0938–AR82
Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act; Program Integrity: Exchange,
SHOP, and Eligibility Appeals
AGENCY
:
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION
:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
:
This final rule implements
provisions of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010 (collectively referred to as the
Affordable Care Act). Specifically, this
final rule outlines Exchange standards
with respect to eligibility appeals,
agents and brokers, privacy and
security, issuer direct enrollment, and
the handling of consumer cases. It also
sets forth standards with respect to a
State’s operation of the Exchange and
Small Business Health Options Program
(SHOP). It generally is finalizing
previously proposed policies without
change.
DATES
:
These regulations are effective
on September 30, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Leigha Basini at (301) 492–4380, or
Noah Isserman at (301) 492–4401 for
general information and matters relating
to parts 155 and 156.
Seth Schneer at (301) 492–4405 for
matters relating to the SHOP.
Jacob Ackerman at (301) 492–4179 for
matters relating to part 147.
Jaya Ghildiyal at (301) 492–5149 for
matters relating to part 153.
Christine Hammer at (301) 492–4431
for matters relating to part 155 subpart
F.
Paul Tibbits at (301) 492–4229 for
matters relating to part 156, subpart K.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
Electronic Access
This
Federal Register
document is
also available from the
Federal Register
online database through
Federal Digital
System (FDsys),
a service of the U.S.
Government Printing Office. This
database can be accessed via the
internet at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
.
Acronyms and Short Forms
Because of the many organizations
and terms to which we refer by acronym
in this proposed rule, we are listing
these acronyms and their corresponding
terms in alphabetical order below:
Affordable Care Act The Affordable Care
Act (which is the collective term for the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Pub. L. 111–148) and the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–152))
AV Actuarial Value
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program
CMP Civil Money Penalty
CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
DOI State Department of Insurance
DOL U.S. Department of Labor
EFT Electronic Funds Transfer
EHB Essential Health Benefits
FEHB Federal Employees Health Benefits
FFE Federally-facilitated Exchange
FFE API Federally-facilitated Exchange
Application Programming Interface
FF–SHOP Federally-Facilitated Small
Business Health Options Program
GAO United States Government
Accountability Office
GLBA Gramm Leach Bliley Act
HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
HIPAA Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–
191, as amended) and its implementing
regulations
IRS Internal Revenue Service
LEP Limited English Proficiency
MAGI Modified Adjusted Gross Income
MLR Medical Loss Ratio
NAIC National Association of Insurance
Commissioners
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PCIP Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan
PHI Protected Health Information
PHS Act Public Health Service Act
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
QHP Qualified Health Plan
SHOP Small Business Health Options
Program
The Code Internal Revenue Code of 1986
TIN Taxpayer Identification Number
Executive Summary
Starting on January 1, 2014, qualified
individuals and qualified employees
will be able to be covered by private
health insurance coverage through
competitive marketplaces called
Affordable Insurance Exchanges, or
‘‘Exchanges’’ (also called Health
Insurance Marketplaces). This rule sets
forth standards for eligibility appeals,
verification of eligibility for minimum
essential coverage, and treatment of
incomplete applications. It also
establishes additional consumer
protections regarding privacy and
security; clarifies the role of agents,
brokers, and issuer application assisters
in assisting consumers with obtaining
Exchange coverage; provides for the
handling consumer cases; and
establishes non-discrimination
standards for methods of premium
payment. Finally, it sets forth provisions
regarding a State’s operation of the
SHOP.
Although many of the provisions in
this rule will become effective by
October 1, 2013, we do not believe that
affected parties will have difficulty
complying with the provisions by their
effective dates, because the standards
are based on existing standards
currently in effect in the private health
insurance market, were previously
addressed in the Exchange Blueprint
process, discussed in agency-issued sub-
regulatory guidance, or discussed in the
preambles to the Exchange
Establishment Rule,
1
Premium
Stabilization Rule,
2
or the HHS Notice
of Benefit and Payment Parameters for
2014.
3
In addition to comments on the
substance of the provisions we are now
finalizing, we sought input on ways to
implement the proposed policies to
minimize burden.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Legislative Overview
B. Stakeholder Consultation and Input
II. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations
and Analysis of and Responses to Public
Comments
A. Part 147—Health Insurance Reform
Requirements for the Group and
Individual Health Insurance Markets
1. Fair Health Insurance Premiums
B. Part 153—Standards Related to
Reinsurance, Risk Corridors, and Risk
Adjustment Under the Affordable Care
Act
1. Subpart F— Health Insurance Issuer
Standards Related to the Risk Corridors
Program
C. Part 155—Exchange Establishment
Standards and Other Related Standards
Under the Affordable Care Act
1. Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Subpart B—General Standards Related to
the Establishment of an Exchange
3. Subpart C—General Functions of an
Exchange
4. Subpart D—Exchange Functions in the
Individual Market: Eligibility
Determinations for Exchange
Participation and Insurance Affordability
Programs
5. Subpart E—Exchange Functions in the
Individual Market: Enrollment in
Qualified Health Plans
6. Subpart F—Appeals of Eligibility
Determinations for Exchange
Participation and Insurance Affordability
Programs
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:01 Aug 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR3.SGM 30AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
54071
Federal Register
/ Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
4
Section 1321(c) of the Affordable Care Act
erroneously cites to section 2736(b) of the PHS Act
instead of 2723(b) of the PHS Act. This was clearly
a typographical error, and we have interpreted
section 1321(c) of the Affordable Care Act to
incorporate section 2723(b) of the PHS Act.
7. Subpart H—Exchange Functions: Small
Business Health Options Program
(SHOP)
D. Part 156—Health Insurance Issuer
Standards Under the Affordable Care
Act, Including Standards Related to
Exchanges
1. Subpart A—General Provisions
2. Subpart C—Qualified Health Plan
Minimum Certification Standards
3. Subpart D—Federally-facilitated
Exchange Qualified Health Plan Issuer
Standards
4. Subpart I—Enforcement Remedies in
Federally-facilitated Exchanges
5. Subpart K—Cases Forwarded to
Qualified Health Plans and Qualified
Health Plan Issuers in Federally-
facilitated Exchanges by HHS
6. Subpart M—Qualified Health Plan Issuer
Responsibilities
III. Collection of Information Requirements
IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis
V. Regulations text
I. Background
A. Legislative Overview
The Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (Pub. L. 111–148) was enacted
on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Pub. L. 111–152), which amended and
revised several provisions of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act, was
enacted on March 30, 2010. In this final
rule, we refer to the two statutes
collectively as the ‘‘Affordable Care
Act.’’
Subtitles A and C of Title I of the
Affordable Care Act reorganized,
amended, and added to the provisions
of Title XXVII of the Public Health
Service Act (PHS Act) relating to health
insurance issuers in the group and
individual markets and to group health
plans that are non-Federal governmental
plans. As relevant here, section 2701 of
the PHS Act (fair health insurance
premiums) provides that the premium
rate charged by a health insurance
issuer for non-grandfathered health
insurance coverage in the individual or
small group market may vary with
respect to a particular plan or coverage
only based on family size, rating area,
age (within a ratio of 3:1 for adults), and
tobacco use (within a ratio of 1.5:1).
Starting on October 1, 2013 for
coverage starting as soon as January 1,
2014, qualified individuals and
qualified employers will be able to
enroll in qualified health plans
(QHPs)—private health insurance that
has been certified as meeting certain
standards—through competitive
marketplaces called Exchanges or
Health Insurance Marketplaces. The
Departments of Health and Human
Services, Labor, and the Treasury have
been working in close coordination to
release guidance related to QHPs and
Exchanges in several phases. The word
‘‘Exchanges’’ refers to both State
Exchanges, also called State-based
Exchanges, and Federally-facilitated
Exchanges (FFEs). In this final rule, we
use the terms ‘‘State Exchange’’ or
‘‘FFE’’ when we are referring to a
particular type of Exchange. When we
refer to ‘‘FFEs,’’ we are also referring to
State Partnership Exchanges, which are
a form of FFE.
In the proposed rule, we encouraged
State flexibility. Sections 1311(b) and
1321(b) of the Affordable Care Act
provide that each State has the
opportunity to establish an Exchange.
Section 1311(b)(1) gives each State the
opportunity to establish an Exchange
that both facilitates the purchase of
QHPs and provides for the
establishment of a Small Business
Health Options Program (SHOP) that
will help qualified employers enroll
their qualified employees in QHPs.
Section 1311(b)(2) contemplates the
separate operation of the individual
market Exchange and the SHOP under
different governance and administrative
structures, permitting the individual
market Exchange and SHOP to be
merged if States have adequate
resources to assist both populations
(individual and small employers).
Section 1321(a) of the Affordable Care
Act provides general authority for the
Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to throughout this rule as the
Secretary) to establish standards and
regulations to implement the statutory
requirements related to Exchanges,
QHPs, and other components of Title I
of the Affordable Care Act.
Section 1321(c)(1) requires the
Secretary to establish and operate an
FFE within States that either: do not
elect to establish an Exchange or, as
determined by the Secretary, will not
have any required Exchange operational
by January 1, 2014.
Section 1321(c)(2) of the Affordable
Care Act authorizes the Secretary to
enforce the Exchange standards using
civil money penalties (CMPs) on the
same basis as detailed in section 2723(b)
of the PHS Act.
4
Section 2723(b) of the
PHS Act authorizes the Secretary to
impose CMPs as a means of enforcing
the individual and group market
reforms contained in Title XXVII, Part A
of the PHS Act when a State fails to
substantially enforce these provisions,
as determined by the Secretary.
Section 1311(d)(4)(A) of the
Affordable Care Act directs that each
Exchange must implement procedures
for the certification, recertification, and
decertification of health plans as QHPs,
consistent with guidelines developed by
the Secretary.
Section 1312(c) of the Affordable Care
Act directs a health insurance issuer to
consider all enrollees in all health plans
(other than grandfathered health plans)
offered by such issuer to be members of
a single risk pool for each of its
individual and small group markets.
Section 1312(c) of the Affordable Care
Act also gives States the option to merge
the individual and small group markets
within the State into a single risk pool.
Section 1312(e) of the Affordable Care
Act directs the Secretary to establish
procedures under which a State may
permit agents and brokers to enroll
qualified individuals and qualified
employers in QHPs through an
Exchange, and to assist individuals in
applying for advance payments of the
premium tax credit and cost-sharing
reductions.
Section 1313 of the Affordable Care
Act, combined with section 1321 of the
Affordable Care Act, provides the
Secretary with the authority to oversee
the financial integrity, compliance with
HHS standards, and efficient and non-
discriminatory administration of State
Exchange activities. Section
1313(a)(6)(A) of the Affordable Care Act
specifies that payments made by,
through, or in connection with an
Exchange are subject to the False Claims
Act (31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq.) if those
payments include any Federal funds.
Under section 1411 of the Affordable
Care Act, the Secretary is directed to
establish a program for determining
whether an individual meets the
eligibility standards for Exchange
participation, advance payments of the
premium tax credit, cost-sharing
reductions, and exemptions from the
shared responsibility payment under
section 5000A of the Code.
Section 1411(g) of the Affordable Care
Act specifies that information provided
by an applicant or received from a
Federal agency may be used only for the
purpose of, and to the extent necessary
in, ensuring the efficient operation of
the Exchange, including for the purpose
of verifying the eligibility of an
individual to enroll through an
Exchange, to claim a premium tax credit
or cost-sharing reduction, or for
verifying the amount of the tax credit or
reduction.
Section 1411(h) of the Affordable Care
Act sets forth civil penalties that any
person may be subject to if he or she
fails to provide correct information or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:01 Aug 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR3.SGM 30AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
54072
Federal Register
/ Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
5
Questions and Answers Related to Health
Insurance Market Reforms (April 26, 2013).
Available at:
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/
Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/qa
_
hmr.html
.
knowingly and willfully provides false
or fraudulent information under section
1411(b), or improperly uses or discloses
information provided by an applicant or
another Federal agency under section
1411(b), (c), (d), or (e).
Sections 1412 and 1413 of the
Affordable Care Act and section 1943 of
the Social Security Act (the Act), as
added by section 2201 of the Affordable
Care Act, contain additional provisions
regarding eligibility for advance
payments of the premium tax credit and
cost-sharing reductions, as well as
provisions regarding simplification and
coordination of eligibility
determinations and enrollment with
other health programs.
Unless otherwise specified, the
provisions in this final rule related to
the establishment of minimum
functions of an Exchange are based on
the general authority of Secretary under
section 1321(a)(1) of the Affordable Care
Act.
B. Stakeholder Consultation and Input
HHS has consulted with stakeholders
on a number of polices related to the
operation of Exchanges, including the
SHOP, and premium stabilization
programs. HHS has held a number of
listening sessions with consumers,
providers, employers, health plans, and
State representatives to gather public
input. HHS consulted with stakeholders
through regular meetings with the
National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC); regular contact
with States through the Exchange
establishment grant process and the
Exchange Blueprint approval process;
and meetings with tribal leaders and
representatives, health insurance
issuers, trade groups, consumer
advocates, employers, and other
interested parties. We considered all of
the public input as we developed the
policies in the proposed rule and this
final rule.
II. Provisions of the Proposed
Regulations and Analysis of and
Responses to Public Comments
A proposed rule, titled ‘‘Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act;
Program Integrity: Exchange, SHOP,
Premium Stabilization Programs, and
Market Standards’’ (78 FR 37032), was
published in the
Federal Register
on
June 19, 2013 with a comment period
ending on July 19, 2013. In total, we
received 99 public comments on the
proposed rule from various
stakeholders, including States, health
insurance issuers, consumer groups,
agents and brokers, provider groups,
Members of Congress, Tribal
organizations, and other stakeholders.
Of the comments received, about 22
were substantially identical submissions
related to non-discrimination standards,
Web-brokers, incomplete applications,
and payment method non-
discrimination standards for the
unbanked. We received a few comments
that were outside the scope of the
proposed rule. In this final rule, we
provide a summary of each proposed
provision, a summary of the public
comments received and our responses to
them, and the policies we are finalizing.
We are not finalizing all the provisions
from this proposed rule. This final rule
includes those provisions that need to
be effective for the beginning of open
enrollment on October 1, 2013. We will
finalize the other provisions at a later
date.
Another proposed rule, entitled
‘‘Essential Health Benefits in Alternative
Benefit Plans, Eligibility Notices, Fair
Hearing, and Appeal Processes for
Medicaid and Exchange Eligibility
Appeals and Other Provisions Related to
Eligibility and Enrollment for
Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and
Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing’’
(78 FR 4594), was published in the
Federal Register
on January 22, 2013
with a comment period ending on
February 13, 2013. We received a total
of 741 comments from various
stakeholders including individuals,
State Medicaid agencies, advocacy
groups, and Tribal organizations. In this
final rule, we are only addressing from
that proposed rule the provisions
related to appeals in Part 155 Subpart F
and § 155.740. Other provisions from
the January 22, 2013 proposed rule were
finalized in a final rule, titled ‘‘CMS–
2234–F: Medicaid and Children’s Health
Insurance Programs: Essential Health
Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans,
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and
Appeal Processes, and Premiums and
Cost Sharing; Exchanges: Eligibility and
Enrollment’’ (78 FR 42160) published in
the
Federal Register
on July 15, 2013.
A. Part 147—Health Insurance Reform
Requirements for the Group and
Individual Health Insurance Markets
1. Fair Health Insurance Premiums
(§ 147.102)
We proposed two clarifications in
§ 147.102, which implements section
2701 of PHS Act regarding fair health
insurance premiums. In paragraph (a),
we proposed to add a reference to the
single risk pool standard codified in
§ 156.80 to clarify the connection
between section 1312(c) of the
Affordable Care Act and section 2701 of
the PHS Act with respect to the
development of rates and premiums for
health insurance coverage in the
individual and small group markets.
In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), we proposed to
clarify that for rating purposes under
section 2701 of the PHS Act, the
geographic rating area is determined in
the small group market using the
principal business address of the group
policyholder, and in the individual
market using the address of the primary
policyholder, regardless of the location
of other individuals covered under the
plan or coverage. These proposed
standards would apply both inside and
outside of the Exchanges and are
consistent with previously released
guidance describing our intended
approach.
5
We solicited comments on
this proposal.
Comment:
While some commenters
supported our proposal that issuers in
the small group market apply rates
based on the employer’s principal
business address, other commenters
noted that issuers in some States have
already developed administrative
systems and rates for 2014 based on
guidance from State regulators to use
each employee’s place of residence.
These commenters requested that States
have flexibility to use either employer
or employee address when rating for
geography.
Response:
We believe it is important
that all issuers offering coverage within
a State, both through the Exchanges and
outside of the Exchanges, use a
consistent geographic rating
methodology to promote the accuracy of
the risk adjustment program established
under section 1343 of the Affordable
Care Act. Further, we believe that rating
based on the employer’s principal
business address is consistent with
current prevailing industry practice and
will simplify administration of the
geographic rating factor. We recognize,
however, that issuers in some cases may
have relied in good faith on guidance or
instructions from States to rate based on
employee address for 2014. Thus, while
we are finalizing our proposed policy
that geographic rating be based on the
employer’s principal business address
generally for plan years beginning on or
after January 1, 2014, we are also
providing in this final rule that where
issuers can demonstrate that they have
relied in good faith on different
guidance from a State insurance
regulator prior to the issuance of this
final rule, the amendments to
§ 147.102(a)(1)(ii) will not apply until
the first plan year beginning on or after
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:01 Aug 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR3.SGM 30AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
54146
Federal Register
/ Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Subpart M—Qualified Health Plan
Issuer Responsibilities
§ 156.1230 Direct enrollment with the QHP
issuer in a manner considered to be
through the Exchange.
(a) A QHP issuer that is directly
contacted by a potential applicant may,
at the Exchange’s option, enroll such
applicant in a QHP in a manner that is
considered through the Exchange. In
order for the enrollment to be made
directly with the issuer in a manner that
is considered to be through the
Exchange, the QHP issuer needs to
comply with at least the following
requirements:
(1)
QHP issuer general requirements.
(i) The QHP issuer follows the
enrollment process for qualified
individuals consistent with § 156.265.
(ii) The QHP issuer’s Web site
provides applicants the ability to view
QHPs offered by the issuer with the data
elements listed in § 155.205(b)(1)(i)
through (viii) of this subchapter.
(iii) The QHP issuer’s Web site clearly
distinguishes between QHPs for which
the consumer is eligible and other non-
QHPs that the issuer may offer, and
indicate that advance payments of the
premium tax credit and cost sharing
reductions apply only to QHPs offered
through the Exchange.
(iv) The QHP issuer informs all
applicants of the availability of other
QHP products offered through the
Exchange through an HHS-approved
universal disclaimer and displays the
Web link to and describes how to access
the Exchange Web site.
(v) The QHP issuer’s Web site allows
applicants to select and attest to an
advance payment of the premium tax
credit amount, if applicable, in
accordance with § 155.310(d)(2) of this
subchapter.
(2)
QHP issuer application assister
eligibility application assistance
requirements.
If permitted by the
Exchange pursuant to § 155.415 of this
subchapter, and to the extent permitted
by State law, a QHP issuer may permit
its issuer application assisters, as
defined at § 155.20, to assist individuals
in the individual market with applying
for a determination or redetermination
of eligibility for coverage through the
Exchange and for insurance affordability
programs, provided that such issuer
ensures that each of its application
assisters at least-
(i) Receives training on QHP options
and insurance affordability programs,
eligibility, and benefits rules and
regulations;
(ii) Complies with the Exchange’s
privacy and security standards adopted
consistent with § 155.260 of this
subchapter; and
(iii) Complies with applicable State
law related to the sale, solicitation, and
negotiation of health insurance
products, including applicable State law
related to agent, broker, and producer
licensure; confidentiality; and conflicts
of interest.
(b)
Direct enrollment in a Federally-
facilitated Exchange.
The individual
market Federally-facilitated Exchanges
will permit issuers of QHPs in each
Federally-facilitated Exchange to
directly enroll applicants in a manner
that is considered to be through the
Exchange, pursuant to paragraph (a) of
this section, to the extent permitted by
applicable State law.
§ 156.1240 Enrollment process for
qualified individuals.
(a)
Premium payment.
A QHP issuer
must—
(1) Follow the premium payment
process established by the Exchange in
accordance with § 155.240.
(2) At a minimum, for all payments in
the individual market, accept paper
checks, cashier’s checks, money orders,
EFT, and all general-purpose pre-paid
debit cards as methods of payment and
present all payment method options
equally for a consumer to select their
preferred payment method.
(b) [Reserved]
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance
Program)
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital
Insurance; and Program No. 93.774,
Medicare—Supplementary Medical
Insurance Program)
Dated: August 13, 2013.
Marilyn Tavenner,
Administrator, Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
Approved: August 15, 2013.
Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–21338 Filed 8–28–13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:01 Aug 29, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\30AUR3.SGM 30AUR3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3


I couldn't make it past the title.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 15, 2013 - 11:23am PT
Ron complained
Health care providers announced more layoffs than any other industry last month — 8,128 — largely because of reductions by hospitals, according to outplacement firm Challenger Gray and Christmas. So far this year, the health care sector has announced 41,085 layoffs, the third-most behind financial and industrial companies.

This is for a complex number of reasons that you can't begin to comprehend. New Hampshire laid off over a thousand healthcare workers a couple years ago because the Republicans killed emergency funding to the states which resulted in New Hampshire rigging their taxes to rob the larger hospitals of cash. We have also been hit by the sequester cuts. We are also facing the stark reality that cost increases can't continue to outpace inflation by 200-300% each year. Sooner or later healthcare has to become more value oriented and that is what is happening.

Ron you may be a competent taxidermist but you are nothing close to a budget wonk much less an expert in the dizzyingly complex world of healthcare finance. Just stop already.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Oct 15, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
That's the publication of a final rule in the federal register. It includes comments and responses. The regulation will be published in the CFR without all the extraneous language. Standard stuff that's been going on for decades, but why not post it on supertopo like it's something extraordinary?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 15, 2013 - 12:39pm PT
That explains it. It's all Yorlanda's (wink wink..brown person) fault.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 15, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
Ron...Bad news dude...! No one has told you but Yorlanda is the Death Panel CEO....The good news....Supertopo is planning a memorial for you this spring...RJ
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 15, 2013 - 02:52pm PT
Ron posted
I spent 40 minutes on the phone yesterday talking to a rep from the GOVT site ... "Yorlanda" could not explain or answer any of the questions i asked her. She DID refer me to other sites which i had previously seen..It was a circular travel she pointed me in..

I think we can all agree the support system is overwhelmed and in need of improvement. It would have been nice if Republicans had spent the last 4 years helping us prepare for this and improving on the law instead of banning support staff from helping people like you (based on what state you live in) or trying to repeal the law instead of improve it.

Repubs spent the last 4 years trying to make sure the law wouldn't work and are now crowing gleefully "see I told you it wouldn't work."
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 15, 2013 - 03:04pm PT
I think we can all agree the support system is overwhelmed and in need of improvement. It would have been nice if Republicans had spent the last 4 years helping us prepare for this and improving on the law instead of banning support staff from helping people like you (based on what state you live in) or trying to repeal the law instead of improve it.

Repubs spent the last 4 years trying to make sure the law wouldn't work and are now crowing gleefully "see I told you it wouldn't work."

It would have been nicer if the Democrats included the Republicans in devising the law in the first place, or left themselves open to consider changes in the law. "We need to pass the law to see what it contains" is no way to devise legislation affecting 16% of the economy.

I still believe its authors intended the law to fail in such a way that single payer health care would be the only available option. Time will tell.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Oct 15, 2013 - 04:11pm PT
It would have been nicer if the Democrats included the Republicans in devising the law in the first place, or left themselves open to consider changes in the law. "We need to pass the law to see what it contains" is no way to devise legislation affecting 16% of the economy.

I still believe its authors intended the law to fail in such a way that single payer health care would be the only available option. Time will tell.

Well, let's see. Big parts of it were based on a law passed by a GOP governor in MA(later GOP presidential candidate). And going further back then that, it incorporates many ideas from a Heritage Foundation proposal. So not exactly a screaming liberal idea. That would have been single payer, or Medicare-for-all. This did include some compromises.

And I think many Democrats would be open to changes. But there would need to be compromises as well. Not just requests for repealing all or part of the act. If the House came forward and said we'd like stronger malpractice protection, but we're willing to accept higher taxes on drug manufacturers, don't you think that would generate some discussion? Instead we get demands for repeal, extortion of the public by refusing to fund the rest of the govt, and no good proposals for alternatives.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 16, 2013 - 11:18am PT


"They are doing plenty of work for about 1% of their constituents."...

Yep...

Keeping the rich, rich, and the rest as far down as they can FORCE them...

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 16, 2013 - 11:30am PT
Even over at the Daily Kook they've finally figured it out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 16, 2013 - 11:35am PT


"ohw and 10 out of 10 friends ive asked have had their premiums go UP..."...

Probably because they had ZERO insurance before = ZERO PREMIUMS...

Now that they can AFFORD insurance, they of course HAVE premiums...

;-)

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 16, 2013 - 11:50am PT

"They were paying through the nose before"...

Then they can PROBABLY afford it...

Not a problem!!!...

Now they can HELP pay for MY insurance!!!...

LOL!!!...


"THANKS!!!"...


;-)



Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Oct 16, 2013 - 12:34pm PT
Yahh and they will also pay for things like CONTRACEPTION so youngsters can go willy nilly and have their jollys for free. And if you thought the welfare bastard children problem was bad before,, just wait.

Uh... what?
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Oct 16, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
Having been both a contraception user and father I can conclusively say that contraception is far cheaper.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 16, 2013 - 12:37pm PT


^^^

EXACTLY!!!...

and a HUGE fuking BINGO!!!...
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 16, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
Ron complained
ohw and 10 out of 10 friends ive asked have had their premiums go UP...

Because they were paying for the lowest possible amount of health insurance before and now have comprehensive coverage.

Ron whined
Yahh and they will also pay for things like CONTRACEPTION so youngsters can go willy nilly and have their jollys for free. And if you thought the welfare bastard children problem was bad before,, just wait.

It's ok guys Ron is just mad that other people are having sex. The fact that his sentence insanely contradicts itself is just frosting.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 18, 2013 - 12:12pm PT
Has anyone been able to get on to any of the exchanges yet? Me either. Seems that even with unlimited funding and over 3 years, the government is having problems getting a working web site running.

I saw that Delaware is celebrating it's first sign up. Someone named Janice. So hope and change is coming....slowly.


"Delaware Celebrates: First Person Finally Enrolls in Obamacare
9:00 AM, Oct 16, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER



Delaware has finally signed up someone for Obamacare. This has caused officials in that state to celebrate, according to the Associated Press.

"Delaware officials are celebrating the state's first health insurance exchange enrollee," the AP writes.

"Department of Health and Social Service officials have declared 59-year-old Janice Baker of Selbyville the first confirmed resident to enroll in the marketplace. It opened Oct. 1 as part of the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act."


It ain't happening in my state yet. Just tried to get on again, for the 10th time. Nope.



Tarheel

Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
Oct 18, 2013 - 10:22pm PT
Some countries have universal health care systems that rely almost entirely on the private market (Swiss). Some are single payer systems (France). Different types of systems are currently providing healthcare at half or better the % of GDP than we do in the US, with better outcomes, and while enjoying strong public support.

It upsets me when I hear people say things like "healthcare is not a right". What's important is that we have many examples of countries which provide high quality universal health care at far lower costs than the US. Some systems are more private and some are more public. And they are continually improving their systems as time goes by and they gain knowledge. You're not making a serious attempt to solve the long term debt problem if you are not actively working to reduce the cost of health care.

The peanut gallery complains about those European socialists and how over-taxed they are. I have a number of foreign friends. We all have professional careers; none of us are in the economic elite. We do economic comparisons. They may pay more in taxes. However much less comes out of their pay check for health care insurance and in the end things seem to be more or less on parity. We have cheaper food and gas. Our "stuff" (houses, cars) are bigger. They typically had free college tuition and never have to worry about losing everything since they got sick. I saw some Canadian women get a gold medal at the Olympics. All I could think of is how lucky they were: they would never worry about going bankrupt because they couldn't afford decent health care.

These days I keep hearing that we have to "Reform Medicare". I think what this means is that we need to just forget trying to reduce the cost of healthcare and instead free the government from the economic risk by letting the poor and middle class just deal with the catastrophe out of their own pockets as best they can. One form of this is Paul Ryan's medicare voucher plan. The debate has shifted so far right that unless there are major changes in our political system something like this may be the "best" thing our government will be able to accomplish.

For some reason we don't hear so much as when the ACA was first being planned about how the cost of health care is "growing at a dangerous and unsustainable rate". It's like we gave up on that. In the 1970's it was an incidental part of your budget--now it can be like paying another mortgage--and if things go bad it can mean bankruptcy. If you have a job that provides health care, look at how much your company is paying for your benefits which otherwise might be in your take home. During the development of the ACA, we had a political climate (republicans and blue dog democrats) that made it impossible to achieve radical changes such as a public option type system. What was achieved was probably the best that could have been achieved given the political players present. Obama would have had a number of non nefarious reasons not to back the public option such as political pragmatism or the fear of making large disruptive changes in a system where it is really hard to anticipate all the consequences. To progressives Obama seems frustratingly timid at times but to the far right he is some kind of monster that will destroy the country.

Now looking back, it seems obvious that many of the legislators involved in that ACA process where not good faith negotiators (were not serious about creating a well functioning efficient system). Most of the obstruction came from Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats. Most of the Blue Dogs lost their offices after that. Unfortunately there are still plenty of angry people out there with their ten kids on Medicade (or whatever) who hate the government and think the government should have nothing to do with healthcare. So those Republicans or worse are still there obstructing.

What began as a sincere effort at compromise by the Democrats is now derided by the right as "Obamacare". By in large, the right just obstructs and makes things worse. As far as I can tell their agenda is to make a feint to reduce the budget by "reforming" medicare while keeping taxes low and military spending high. Despite their claims, they can't really care about cutting the debt since the math doesn't add up unless they also plan to remove most of the population from the health care system entirely. Since the right is also obstructing economic stimulation measures employment will remain high which tends to worsen the debt situation as well. They also spend a lot of time thinking about voter suppression to keep their majority in the house. Democrats who really are serious to make things better are working with a bad faith opposition that just obstructs and plays political games to increase their power.

I used to love to read the Atlantic Magazine. I remember roughly 20 years ago reading about a long-term plan of the right-wing Heritage Foundation which was described by cynics as "bankrupt the treasury so badly that we would be forced to ditch Medicare etc.". Meanwhile "Project For The New Century" (the neoconservatives) was established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries. In their statement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:
--Increase the military budget at the expense of domestic social programs
--Toppling of regimes resistant to our corporate interests
--Forcing democracy at the barrel of a gun in regions that have no history of the democratic process
--Replacing the UN’s role of preserving and extending international order

(This all can be read in their own words at www.newamericancentury.org)

Something akin to the Heritage plan has actually played out nicely: Bush tax cuts to drain the treasury. Increased economic instability caused by overly-lax regulation of Wall Street and corporations which (duh) tend to externalize costs. These externalized costs such as pollution ultimately must be paid by the public in some form or other (cancer is largely caused by air pollution). An attack on 911 (According to Project For The New Century document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, their stated goals would never be realized “absent some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. ) which the Bush administration could not have done less to prevent. This was what the neocons needed to start the Bush wars. Lied about the intelligence. Had domino theory hubris. The subprime mortgage crisis crashed the economy and led to the $700B Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (signed by Bush, commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S financial system). An overwhelming majority of the banks affected saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future. Then we have the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by Obama which amounted to $831B but was far too weak ($288B of it was tax relief). The Bush tax cuts, wars, bailout, and stimulus account for nearly all of the debt, especially if you factor in the greatly reduced treasury revenues caused by an economy with high unemployment. But high unemployment is advantageous since desperate workers will work harder for less pay. The right was criticized for trying to block efforts to stimulate the economy, hoping poor economy will be blamed on "liberal policies". Damaging education was also important as were corruption of the economic system. Fox News and Clear Channel propaganda networks did their part to keep the base fired up and angry. And the worse things get, the more they get riled up and vote for the right wing candidates who are implementing the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of Heritage plan was to so bankrupt the treasury that politicians could throw up their hands and say "we just can't afford this anymore, and things are so dire, the national debt is so great that we have to take extreme measures". I think that's where the tea party comes in nicely and just on time!
Climberdude

Trad climber
Fresno, CA
Oct 18, 2013 - 10:58pm PT
Ok, this is not entirely climbing related, but if I get hurt while climbing and need insurance, it is climbing related.

While I am not a big fan of the recent health care changes, I think it is the step in the right direction toward a single payer plan. I have so many friends and relatives by marriage who are citizens of Northern European countries. Although they think that US is great, there is no way in hell that they are going to give up their citizenship to become a US citizen because they will loose their free healthcare privilages. What the rest of the world understands is a necessity, by the ^&$%ing Koch brothers (dont's get me started) think is wasted money.

Don't believe the freaking BS that you hear regarding Canada, Norway, and other countries about the waits. These are just people who had private insurance which actually slowed down their access. The right way to go is single payer plan, but it is not going to happen overnight.

I recently got to compare very closesly the entire taxation of Canadian citizens versus American citizens. Guess what - Canadian citizens are overall taxed less but have far superior public service, which includes healthcare.
Climberdude

Trad climber
Fresno, CA
Oct 18, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
Corporate taxes in Canada are much lower, but perhaps the individual taxes are higher. Taken together, which is what I am considering, Canada is lower than the US.
Climberdude

Trad climber
Fresno, CA
Oct 18, 2013 - 11:31pm PT
Riley,

You must have a lot of Teabilly "friends"!
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2013 - 11:28am PT
Consumer Reports weighs in:

Consumer Reports: ‘Stay Away From HealthCare.gov’
By Alec Torres
October 21, 2013 9:56 AM


Consumer Reports, which publishes reviews of consumer products and services, advised its readers to avoid the federal healthcare exchange “for at least another month if you can.” “Hopefully that will be long enough for its software vendors to clean up the mess they’ve made,” the magazine said, having tested the site themselves over the course of the past three weeks.

Noting that only 271,000 of the 9.47 million people who tried signing up in the first week were managed to create an account, Consumer Reports then provided a few tips to those attempting to slog through the application process. From attempting successive logins because “error messages … may not always match reality” to checking your inbox frequently because if you miss an email you’ll be timed out of the site and forced to start from square one, none of the suggestions guaranteed success.

The magazine has also released a string of scathing reviews. On October 1, the day the Obamacare exchanges went online, the magazine told people to be patient: “Don’t worry if you can’t sign up today or even within the next couple of weeks.” A week into enrollment, they urged again to “wait a couple weeks and hope that the site irons out its many problems” because the HealthCare.gov is “barely operational.”

As the editors continued to review the website over the next few days, they only had one positive statement: “On the plus side,” they noted, “consumers coming to HealthCare.gov are no longer stopped cold by an error message or a screen saying they’ve been put in a waiting line.”

Now three weeks into the exchanges, having offered reviews and advice, Consumer Reports said that “If all [these suggestions] are too much to absorb, follow our previous advice: Stay away from Healthcare.gov,” at least for the time being."
phylp

Trad climber
Millbrae, CA
Oct 21, 2013 - 11:43am PT
Because my individual policy is being cancelled by Aetna as they are getting out of business in California, I tried to sign up for coverage through Covered California. After a frustrating week of getting stuck inside the signup program I gave up and went directly to a new provider through einsurance.com. It took me 5 minutes. The previous application I did for private insurance took me several days since they required information going back ten years. So this aspect of the law is a huge improvement.

It is going to cost me more money for the private coverage (not sure how much since I could never get that far into the app) than through the state exchange but at least I know I have coverage starting January 1. Since we have until March to sign up through the state exchange, I'll try again later after all the bugs are reported to have been worked out of the system.

couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 23, 2013 - 11:42am PT
Delaware has someone signed up, took her 7 hours of trying via phone as the .gov computers were not working so she couldn't get the web site to work. Bet her ear hurts now from being glued to the phone for 7 hours, but at least her ear has health coverage. Oregon has yet to get one signed up yet. Can't access the web site as of 2 days ago either, despite what this article says.

"By Shelby Sebens
Published October 23, 2013


It’s not only the national Affordable Care Act insurance exchange that’s experiencing a host of problems. Oregon, despite setting up its own state exchange for Obamacare insurance, has yet to enroll anyone through its online website for health insurance. Maybe the state bit off more than it could chew. The online exchange, Cover Oregon, launched Oct. 1. Oregonians can browse for health insurance, but they can’t enroll online although it appears many want to. Since opening earlier this month, the website has received 430,000 visits and 3.7 million page views."

SCseagoat

Trad climber
Santa Cruz
Oct 23, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
mandatory insurance"

Do you drive a car?

Susan
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 23, 2013 - 09:54pm PT
Our United healthcare/Golden Rule high deductible plan of 20 plus years was cancelled ( they pulled out of Alaska altogether) due to changes of ACA, according to their letter in June of 2012. We signed up with Premera/ Blue Cross with an even higher deductible ( 10,000 from 7500) than Golden Rule and anything they judged to be "preconditions" not fully covered for a year from the policy date, price slightly less. A week ago we received a letter from Premera/Blue Cross indicating our premium will rise approximately 50% as of 1-1-2014. This is typical of the self employed in the individual market in AK.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 23, 2013 - 10:00pm PT
No!

You always talk to long.

It happens when they finally get thru and discover what the premiums and deductibles are.

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 23, 2013 - 10:33pm PT
the gov't pays you

Just what you want isn't it.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 23, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
I hope they have mandatory prostate checks...
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 23, 2013 - 11:21pm PT


Cept it's gonna be her!

Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 24, 2013 - 12:18am PT
^^^^is that.......SATAN ( Church lady voice)

Well I have managed to avoid putting the family on Obummercare. I did get the great fortune of re signing with my current provider( originally they said they were effectively canceling the policy) for about $300 more per month, increased deductible, smaller network of DR's, increased co pays and increased % of what I owe after deductible has been fulfilled. They did throw in some worthless dental insurance for my kids though ???

Overall, less bene's, greater expense but woowhoo, I still have insurance for my family. What a Frickin mess.

Yep, this is great.

Guangzhou

Trad climber
Asia, Indonesia, East Java
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:22am PT
You can let your European friends know that they don't have to give up European citizenship when they become Americans.

I personally love America. I know Healthcare suck in what I consider to be the greatest country. Because of Healthcare, when my wife and I talk about our retirement, we look towards France more than America.

Southern France or Lake Tahoe are top of my list. Sierras would win, but healthcare could force me to climb in Verdon instead.
I do remember reading somewhere that because they are paid, Europeans get medical check-ups more often. Article supported that this saved medical expenses. Makes sense to me. Just wonder why more insurance companies don't require and pay annual checks.


Eman
A dual citizen

ruppell

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 09:44am PT
The cost of insurance for my wife and I just DOUBLED. Congrats Obama you just made me a Republican.
Degaine

climber
Oct 27, 2013 - 06:07am PT
Guangzhou wrote:
I do remember reading somewhere that because they are paid, Europeans get medical check-ups more often. Article supported that this saved medical expenses. Makes sense to me. Just wonder why more insurance companies don't require and pay annual checks.

FYI – there is no single European healthcare system, each country has its own system. The French, for example, do not get paid to get regular checkups. France has the number 1 healthcare system on the planet (all criteria combined).

Also, %GDP is not nearly as good an indicator as per capita healthcare spending. The US spends twice as much per capita as France and Germany - US = $8,000 per capita, compared to FR/GER = $4,000 per capita (rounded off figures for simplicity) – and yet the US does not cover its entire population and has worse outcomes in most categories.

As you write, regular checkups are part of the equation. These allow catching something in its early stages to avoid an ER visit or hospitalization, whereas in the USA, the uninsured often wait until they need urgent care before heading to the ER to see a doctor.

However, a visit to the GP in France costs 23 € (about $30) where as a visit to your GP in the US costs between $110-$130 at least. Depending on the insurance I’ve had over the years (changes with jobs), I’ve had $30 co-pays.

An ultrasound in France costs 75 €, the average bill in the USA is $450. Do you see where I’m going with this?

Add to that the propensity in the USA to use high cost imaging modalities such as MRI or CT when only 3 out of 10 patients actually need it, well, yet another piece of the explanation puzzle as to why healthcare costs so much more in the USA. But that’s not all, since Japan uses a lot of this type of imaging and yet spends only 1/3 of what the USA spends per capita on healthcare.

Take into consideration the points the TIME article made a while ago, and you’ll understand that there often is no rhyme or reason for the cost of a given procedure. The corporation providers and insurances are bilking the American public and will continue to do so as long as mum’s the word.
Degaine

climber
Oct 27, 2013 - 06:10am PT
ruppell wrote:
The cost of insurance for my wife and I just DOUBLED. Congrats Obama you just made me a Republican.

Has nothing to do with the ACA. But keeping thinking that, and please, vote Republican, it's your right.

But please do me a favor and promise not to come back and whine like you just did in the above post when you can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, and end up going bankrupt paying for care.
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Oct 27, 2013 - 11:37am PT
The cost of insurance for my wife and I just DOUBLED. Congrats Obama you just made me a Republican.

LOl!
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Oct 27, 2013 - 11:51am PT
All you Obama supporters are about to face the results you voted for...and I could not be happier.


http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/90167-watch-five-big-lies-obamacare/
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 27, 2013 - 12:18pm PT
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 27, 2013 - 03:09pm PT
So many folks complaining about the new rules and regs.....it's hard to relate. Here's one version, titled:
"Yay! We Get a Six-Week Extension on Paying Our Obamacare Fines!"

Read the full meal deal here:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/yay-we-get-six-week-extension-on-paying.html


apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Oct 27, 2013 - 05:05pm PT
Fret not...Single Payer is on it's way!

(Where we should have been in the first place)
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 27, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
I'm confused how people are reporting greatly increased rates (even though that seems to happen all the time, even before Obamacare, when one provision of the law limits Insurance Industry profits

From

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/

"The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs."

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 27, 2013 - 09:43pm PT
I'm confused how people are reporting greatly increased rates (even though that seems to happen all the time, even before Obamacare, when one provision of the law limits Insurance Industry profits

no reason for confusion, Karl

They are lying, flat our lying

extremely they even got a username and password established to even get through, apply,
and have heard back with a definitive quote yet

I can state with verifiable accuracy that my own person monthly payment went down $40 a month
and incredibly my annual deducatible was cut in half from $2500 to $1250, all directly because
as Karl pointed out, the ACA required that at least 80% of premium dollars be spent, gasp, on
healthcare or refunded, which was what happened in my case.

By the way, what IS the republican healthcare plan to insure 30 million more anyway?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 27, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
Thge increased costs of the Unaffordable Healthcare Tax are easy to understand when;

A 55 year old woman has to pay for maternity coverage

A 20 year old man has to pay for prostate exams

A healthy young person can't get limited catastrophic coverage INSURANCE!


\

Half a million Californians are loosing their coverage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362263/500000-californians-lose-health-policies-wesley-j-smith


stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Oct 27, 2013 - 10:55pm PT
Thge increased costs of the Unaffordable Healthcare Tax are easy to understand when;

A 55 year old woman has to pay for maternity coverage

A 20 year old man has to pay for prostate exams
TGT

Those are part of the mandatory package of preventative care that plans are required to offer. No one is going to make the 22 year old get a prostate exam. Or the 55 year old women get preggers and go to an OB.
But the marginal cost of having everyone pay for prevention is pretty small.
The cost of not doing preventative care and covering prostate cancer or a bad pregnancy, or any number of otehr things is very high.
Would you really rather we didn't try to prevent this stuff?
Sean Garecht

Trad climber
Reno, NV
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:02pm PT
40yr old male in Nevada. Have blue cross blue shield. Got the letter in the mail that I was dropped. Insurance went from $106 to $378. Just another $3,264 out of my pocket. Not happy.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
sounds like blue cross decided that now that you are 40 you are higher risk and raised your
premium

and THAT is exactly what just one of the problems is with the current healthcare system

let's hope you can find a cheaper policy when the exchanges get running better
Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
As a small biz owner our experience with health care insurance premium rates has been blech as usual. To keep out current policy with Anthem we will have to pay 9.31% more next year. When we get quotes on the exchanges for various plans, the benefits are fewer and the premiums are higher.

It cracks me up when the Obamacare hucksters say "you can get insurance for about what your cable bill is each month, or your phone bill". BS. With our Anthem plan a healthy 27 year old male will cost $283 a month to insure next year. For fewer benefits, higher deductibles, etc in the exchange for the same employee it's $450.

I'm a bit (a lot) older so I'm about $1,100 a month with either Anthem or on the exchange. Obama won over support in the biz community by promising rates would be held in check. Each year since it's gone up again at 9-13%.

Generally I favor fairly free markets because I think that's the best way to motivate people. In this case though I am in favor of a single payer system. The big winners in this game, hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, doctors, and lawyers are all way too powerful for ordinary people to ever get a fair shake.

That's why, as a percentage of GDP, as a country we spend double what many other developed countries do on health care.

Health care costs and health care insurance will break a lot of small businesses if these expenses are not reigned in.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 28, 2013 - 03:03pm PT
It cracks me up when the Obamacare hucksters say "you can get insurance for about what your cable bill is each month, or your phone bill"

prove it

links?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Oct 28, 2013 - 03:10pm PT
Norton writes:

"prove it
links?"




Just one.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/22/remarks-president-congressional-black-caucus-foundation-phoenix-awards-d

"So just think about that. Knowing you can offer your family the security of health care –- that’s priceless. And now you can do it for less than your cell phone bill. That’s what change looks like."

 President Barack Obama

Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Oct 28, 2013 - 03:25pm PT
Norton, it's hard to cite things you see and hear on the tube. Tube as in TV. But both Obama and some admin rep said words very close to what I quoted, both on television. It made my ears perk up because we're making decisions now at work about health care coverages and costs for 2014.

I think they should scrap the whole thing and go to single payer.

mucci

Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
Oct 28, 2013 - 06:17pm PT
Dropped by my individual plan.

Raised my premiums by $210 per month.

Maybe I should just quit my job, and become a titsucker.

Here comes the boommotherfukcers.
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Oct 28, 2013 - 06:42pm PT
Is there an example anywhere in the world where free market capitalism results in affordable and high quality healthcare for most of the population?

A "free market" implies a buyer and a seller free from the need to do business with each other, free to make alternative choices. If you are sick or dying, or your family members are, then practically speaking you can't walk away from the deal. You'll pay whatever they say it costs to keep your loved one alive.

That is EXACTLY why discussion of free market theories for healthcare should be categorically rejected. Use standard diagnostic codes, with standardized methods of mapping reported symptoms and test results to those diagnoses, and with standard care regimens and defined costs for those regimens, and skip the parasitic insurance companies squeezing a profit out of it. The only useful service one can identify that the insurance company performs is to ferret out frivolous claims and use bulk purchasing power to negotiate down prices with care providers. If the government set the prices for the services, and the government enforced compliance/investigated fraud/etc. Then there is no need for insurance providers.

That seems so much cleaner than a government mandate for insurance while still providing a "free market" choice of options, where there is implicit collusion to keep prices high because the market is as captive as ever. Sometimes compromise is a beeyotch.

I'm hoping the present healthcare landscape is part of the larger juggernaut toward more of a socialized medicine program. It's just a painful intermediate step mandated by many lawmakers dragging their feet on change that will kill the cash cow of health insurance.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Oct 28, 2013 - 07:17pm PT
^^^ Yup

n canada I don't remember there being much of a difference between the costs. If I was working, or if I wasn't working, it was mostly the same. Health care was there for everyone in a equal way. There was not any deductable.

No deductible

If I dont work or make less than 20g a year its straight up free

If I do work then its 100% covered by my job, plus dental, scripts are 90-100% covered

If I work for myself, my monthly cost is about $67 for full coverage
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Oct 28, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
I think they should scrap the whole thing and go to single payer.

That's the best solution, so Republicans will oppose that most fiercely.

Curt
Sean Garecht

Trad climber
Reno, NV
Oct 28, 2013 - 07:56pm PT
No Norton.

That is not why I was dropped. I was dropped because my current insurance doesn't meet the required Obamacare standards. I already got the 40 year old bump up last year when I turned 40.

I received 3 letters in the mail from Blue Cross stating that things were going to be changing with the upcoming implementation of Obama Care. And they did change, increased prices, and me and millions of other people are now paying considerably moor.

You are quit snarky and quick to dismiss any idea that maybe this Obama Care sucks. I'm not saying that insurance as it was was great, but the powers that be took a hatchet job to the whole industry when a scalpel was needed.


On another note...

Whats up Ron Anderson...You and your boys put up some awesome routes in the Carson Tahoe zone.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 28, 2013 - 08:59pm PT
The liar in chief.



Even NBC now reports the truth.

our sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Oct 28, 2013 - 09:26pm PT
By the way, what exactly is the healthcare plan that the candidate YOU voted for put forth?

Romneycare. Obamacare is the plan the Republicans wanted. Why are they against it now?
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 28, 2013 - 09:35pm PT
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Oct 28, 2013 - 09:41pm PT
ObamaCare is just another one of the Liar in Chief's ways of wealth redistribution. He is clearly distributing all of ours to China.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 28, 2013 - 10:19pm PT
Yes , part of the blame can be placed on the Repubs for wanting Romney care yet they point the finger at Obama..? I think the Republicans original plan was to give tax credits to the poor so they could afford health care but that plan was so cynical and unrealistic that it never got off the ground..Remember romney's gaff about the 47% leeching off the system...then he turns around and throws out his feeble health care plan...brilliant..
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 28, 2013 - 10:57pm PT
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
Obamacare is the result of a bait and switch to buy votes. It worked.

Now we get to watch the wonderfully efficient government try to implement an IT project that is said to be one of the largest and most complicated ever.

Cronies will get rich.

Obamacare will collapse and many will be without health care. Basically the opposite of what was promised will occur.

Writing has been on the wall for quite some time but any criticism is dismissed as partisan.


Go climb but don't hurt yourself in January if you are relying on Obamacare.

If you want to buy a plan in the open market, take that money that you plan to spend on Xmas gifts or that next climbing trip and give it to the insurance companies or the government. That will totally help our economy. Also don't get hurt or sick in early 2014 if you are relying on Obamacare. If you do, you better find religion and pray.



We are F'd.

johntp

Trad climber
socal
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
ObamaCare is just another one of the Liar in Chief's ways of wealth redistribution.

Roger that. My health care plan premium is going up 44%. Heaven forbid I actually get sick or need hospitalization. The deductibles are out the roof.

A turd is a turd and Obama is shoving it down our throats. "Affordable" my ass.

peladob

Mountain climber
Mason City, Iowa
Oct 28, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
How bout this little gem...

This is an exerpt from the NBC news blog...

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”

None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.


Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 29, 2013 - 12:16am PT
ObamaCare is just another one of the Liar in Chief's ways of wealth redistribution. He is clearly distributing all of ours to China.

what part of 'render unto Caeser' did Christ get wrong?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 29, 2013 - 12:17am PT
Impeachment time YET?

go ahead Ron, what's holding you back?
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 29, 2013 - 12:30am PT
Yep this is about abortion.
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Oct 29, 2013 - 12:34am PT
If this is such a great deal, why is congress opted out and have their own health plan?

Bunch of smarmy f-wads, all of them.

Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 01:05am PT
My ex-wife, in San Diego, was just dropped by her individual plan (Aetna). She told me that they were pulling out of California. She's kind of pissed and scared right now.
My own plan through my employer in Alaska (Blue Cross) will not change so far because it meets the requirements. Not sure how it will be affected when the employer mandate kicks in, next year I think.

I hope this somehow works out. Lots of partisan finger pointing, but right now I think anyone seeking the truth has to admit that the ACA so far is a disaster. If you've lost Jon Stewart or Saturday Night Live on an issue, you've lost the country on that issue. Now NBC is hammering it.

The question is, what is the fix, and how does it happen technically and politically?
I work in telecommunications, but I am not a SW programmer or expert. I have only read that the technical fix will be a nightmare if possible at all. Too many legacy SW systems have to work together seamlessly.
Because ACA was passed on a strictly partisan vote to start with, the politics will make any fix a partisan pissing match. Live and learn.
If so many lives weren't riding on it, it would be just another Washington DC clown show.
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Oct 29, 2013 - 01:09am PT
The demand Obama wants for these insurance companies is unsustainable.....
peladob

Mountain climber
Mason City, Iowa
Oct 29, 2013 - 01:52am PT
It's going to crash. A single payer system will be adopted. It's about control.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Oct 29, 2013 - 01:58am PT
It's going to crash. A single payer system will be adopted.

Well, we can hope.

Curt
Degaine

climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 06:22am PT
Larry Nelson wrote:
The question is, what is the fix,

A single payer system. Medicare (or Medicaid) for all, if that makes the concept simpler for Americans to understand.
Degaine

climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 06:25am PT
Ron Anderson wrote:
Impeachment time YET?


An on what exact charges would you like to impeach (read "indict") him on?

Remember, this was a joint effort on Congress passing the law and Obama signing it.

On a side note, I don't remember you calling for Bush's impeachment after he blatantly lied regarding WMD. Since you seem to divide the US into two teams, is it because he was playing for yours?
Degaine

climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 06:36am PT
Cragman wrote:
ObamaCare is just another one of the Liar in Chief's ways of wealth redistribution. He is clearly distributing all of ours to China.

It's surprising to see you write something so callous and partisan after seeing you show such compassion and selflessness regarding Matthew Greene.

I'll return in kind, with regard to healthcare and your statement, you don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

The eventual single payer system that will come out of this mess like a phoenix from the flames will insure both the health of your fellow Americans and the health of the now staggering American economy.

Why do you think Detroit moved its factories across the border into Canada?
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 09:54am PT
Degaine wrote
A single payer system. Medicare (or Medicaid) for all, if that makes the concept simpler for Americans to understand.


Sure, that's what you would like, but how do you get there?

One, it would probably be the largest social policy legislation in US history during the worst recession of our lives, basically medicare for all. Simpler for users yes, but how will it fund?

Two, current politics have poisoned the art of compromise (look at the comments here). Gonna have to have both parties agree if it's gonna be a success. Bi-partisan, just like all other social policy legislation ever passed in our history.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 29, 2013 - 09:56am PT


"Gonna have to have both parties agree if it's gonna be a success."...


Wouldn't it be great if they actually worked TOGETHER to better AMERICA???...

Nah!!!...

Of course not!!!...

Makes way too much sense...



Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Oct 29, 2013 - 10:45am PT
Sure, that's what you would like, but how do you get there?


Phased implementation.

1. Expand both medicaid and medicare towards each other.

-increase those covered by medicaid
-allow people to buy into Medicare at ages below 65. Drop the age by 10 years, every 5 years.

2. Change the VA system into Medicare, with better coverage for doctors, drugs. Eliminate the VA, the largest and most expensive healthcare system in the US.

3. When all are covered, eliminate medical part of work comp, and medpay for car insurance. Boo-Hoo for the attorneys.
peladob

Mountain climber
Mason City, Iowa
Oct 29, 2013 - 10:53am PT
Where will the docs come from?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Oct 29, 2013 - 11:42am PT
Plenty of docs.

All the VA docs.

All the docs wasting their time with BS Work Comp and auto Medpay cases.

All the midlevels being trained.

All the new med school slots

Plenty.
Degaine

climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
Larry Nelson wrote:
One, it would probably be the largest social policy legislation in US history during the worst recession of our lives, basically medicare for all. Simpler for users yes, but how will it fund?

Real quick:

*For funding, all the money being poured into private insurance would go into the universal system. Adding 30 million people to the risk pool would also lower the per person costs.

*Medicare reimbursement rates are much lower than what private insurance companies are able to negotiate. Don't worry, provider establishments and doctors still make lots of money even when they care for Medicare patients almost exclusively. This will also lower the per person cost.

*Fix drug costs. Don't worry, big pharma is still making money hand over fist in Europe, no reason that would not continue here. In addition, contrary to what they would have you believe, big pharma does very little research when compared to 20 or 30 years ago. The business model now is to let biotech startups sink or swim with expensive research and clinical trials using venture capital, and then to buy up only viable companies/drugs. In any case, Medicare could be using its 500 pound gorilla weight now to reduce drug costs.

*Provide little to no reimbursement for non-essential care like dental (teeth cleaning and such), cosmetic surgery, or for things like private rooms, and then allow people to purchase private supplemental insurance to cover those things.

That's off the top of my head, and yes that works well in other countries, and docs still make a great living.

Of course and as use state, not sure when the political will to implement this type of system will show up.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 29, 2013 - 04:29pm PT
Right now it certainly feels like I will be partly funding it through greatly increased premiums.

Truly a massive tax increase in my world of running a small business.


The partisan bullSh**ers can spray on. Unfortunately, it is not going to fix this mess.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 29, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 29, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
jghedge wrote;
Best article yet on current state of the ACA:



It's good to have a healthy dose of scientific skepticism when it comes to complicated political solutions that politicians exempt themselves from.

This healthcare is especially complicated to my modest intellect, but to buy into everything one party says seems kind of religious.
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Oct 29, 2013 - 10:36pm PT
Degaine....CALLOUS? I was being KIND!!!!! You Obama supporters are just blind to your man and his dream. Too bad his dream is gonna kick your ass!


Riley...you're not worth my breath.
LuckyPink

climber
the last bivy
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:07am PT
the affordable health act is about a social movement, that's right.
It's about who is going to drive your health, who will make decisions about your care. Is it the deregulated industrial model of the profit building, cost saving, service trimming top heavy corporation? Or is it about who (literally) is going to transfer you out of your bed into the wheelchair to get you to the bathroom? Or who is going to decide the price of your 4 different cardiac medications when you are retired/disabled/injured and not able to work? All you guys are dead center in the wave of new patients coming into large health needs. Who do you want to decide things for you? A doctor or a corporate accountant? Do you trust the 680% mark up on the cost of providing health care that your HMO wants you to fund? It's good for business. Is it good for you?
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:12am PT
jghedge wrote:
Politicians aren't poor. Why, therefore, do they need ObamaCare? They have coverage that exceeds what ObamaCare offers.
People who can afford to drive a Lexus should drive a Chevy Geo because...why?


7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the US are in the Washington DC metropolitan area.
http://www.wjla.com/pictures/2012/09/top-10-richest-counties-in-u-s---7-in-d-c-area/-10-montgomery-county-md-25979-1804.html
Washington DC is a culture of corruption, an Imperial City like the Hunger Games.
So, let them eat cake. Thanks for making my point.


"I remember when 'liberal' meant being generous with your own money."--Will Rogers.
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Oct 30, 2013 - 07:43am PT
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."


~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006



Not a leader.....a two-faced liar.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 11:08am PT
Riley Wyna wrote:
But Obama has reduced the budget deficit..


Yes he has reduced the budget deficit... from the 4 highest deficits in US history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_2001-2010.png
The National debt, AKA the accumulation of all annual deficits, is far more outrageous than when candidate Obama decried it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._National_Debt_-_Dollars_and_Relative_to_GDP.png


Is this a good time to add the biggest entitlement program in our history?
I know healthcare has been an increasingly expensive mess and due to the extremely complicated nature of it I don't have the smarts, the time or the inclination to research it all...much like congress when they voted for ACA.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 04:11pm PT
jghedge wrote;
Again, why should people sign up for ObamaCare when they don't have to?


Excellent question. My ex-wife was just dropped from Aetna (she said they are pulling out of California)and she is feeling scared and pissed. She was happy with what she had and she is not poor. Will she be forced to sign up for ACA, or to pay far higher premiums somewhere else?

I guess you could blame it on the insurance. But why all of a sudden are they pulling out of California? I'm not smart enough to figure out all the regulations ACA is imposing on the healthcare industry, but I see results and how it impacts many. It is not good.

Anytime Congress exempts themselves from a policy they proclaim is great for the unwashed, I am skeptical of their motives and honesty.
You are free to have faith in their motives and honesty.



JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 30, 2013 - 04:39pm PT
Yes, let's shift the debate from the Affordable [sic] Care Act to Sarah Palin. I guess I'd try that too if I had to defend a party and President who chose to spend all of their political capital on the ACA. That act works so well that the President has used his non-enumerated powers to suspend it for certain segments of society and exempt those favorably connected from part of the requirements. Meanwhile, most premiums increased as a direct result of this folly.

More damning, the administration knew since 2010 that implementation of the ACA would result in between 40% and 65% of current health plan customers losing their coverage, and being forced into more expensive plans. Despite this, the President continued to say until a few weeks ago "If you like your coverage, you can keep it."

At least you have the Tea Party ready to divert attention from this fiasco.

John
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Oct 30, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
Yes, let's shift the debate from the Affordable [sic] Care Act to Sarah Palin. I guess I'd try that too if I had to defend a party and President who chose to spend all of their political capital on the ACA...

It wasn't the president or his party who just erased all of their political capital by shutting down the federal government over the ACA. That would be the Republican party--currently less popular that hemorrhoids and root canals.

Curt
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:25pm PT
You know exactly why some policies have gone up in price - it's because insurers are now actually required to provide an adequate level of coverage. The inexpensive policies that everyone "lost" were just ripoffs. People just thought they had insurance because they were paying the premiums...

Well, it's anti-American and socialist to protect people from being ripped off. You know, because it's bad for business. How dare Obama and his jackbooted thugs...

Curt
doughnutnational

Gym climber
its nice here in the spring
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
Is there anyone out there who did not their premiums rise alot almost every year even before Obama Care? The problem as mentioned is trying to change the delivery method for health insurance while keeping obscene profits intact for those who provide no health care.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
jghedge wrote:
And this assertion is given the full 3-Pinocchio, Flat-Out Lie rating by the Post:

I stand corrected. A one year waiver for certain groups. As I have mentioned, I have a life beyond watching the news and I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out a very complicated issue. Kudos to you for knowing so much.

So as far as my other point: The presidents statement, "If you like your coverage, you can keep it" evidently does not apply to my ex-wife's plan. I hope that the "non-profit" in the exchange is cheaper than her "for profit" plan that she liked, but I'm not placing any bets based on what politicians say. All she wanted was catastrophic coverage so she wouldn't lose her house, but she may now have to pay for services she doesn't think she needs. As I said, she is pissed. She is also non-political.

I still remain skeptical of the wonderfulness of it all, but I admire your faith and passion in totally buying into it. I hope it works out. It's just not looking good so far.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:39pm PT
All she wanted was catastrophic coverage

With that type of medical coverage, what happens when/if you get cancer ? If the old coverage did not cover cancer or similar who pays for the care if you do get one of these tpyes of diseases?

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:59pm PT
Since you asked, Dave, here's a post from a now-deleted thread that I made in 2009 which contains what I think we should have done:

"[Jul 29, 2009 - 03:15pm PT]

The effect of malpractice litigation on health care costs goes far beyond the costs of premiums. While it is beyond serious dispute that laws such as California's MICRA laws result in lower malpractice premiums, they do nothing to affect the "legal defense" practice of medicine.

I know a great many health care providers of all varieties. My wife is a nurse. Our best man is a doctor. My main climbing partner is married to a nurse practitioner. Virtually every health care worker I know claims that they need to perform procedures, prescribe medication, or run tests that the patient probably would choose to forgo, if the patient were making the payments directly, but which the professional cannot forgo without fear of being sued.

At least in California, if a doctor gets sued for malpractice, he or she cannot settle the case without it being recorded as a blot on their record. This forces them to spend untold amounts of time and agony defending claims that are usually spurious. A great many of those suits allege that the doc failed to do everything possible to treat the patient. This provides a powerful incentive to maximize, not optimize health care.

As I stated much earlier in this thread, and which no one has refuted, the main reason we spend more on medical care is that we get more medical care.

There are numerous problems with the current healthcare system that I believe government involvement could make better. Since the Dems on this thread are crying for a solution, let me offer these:

1. For coverage of uninsured patients, something in the nature of the VA would be a good option. Particularly as the population of veterans decreases as the generations subject to the draft die out, we should integrate that system into a general system available to those who want it -- but there should be some cost. Otherwise, there is no incentive to use it wisely.

2. There is no reason why health coverage should be dependent on employment. The tie between health care coverage and employment has three historic roots:

(a) Henry Ford wanted his workers to stay healthy, and thought it was worth his money to include it as a benefit;

(b) Health benefits did not count as wages or salaries in World War II. It was thus a way for businesses to obtain workers by raising their return from employment without running afoul of wage controls; and

(c) Health benefits paid by employers are not taxed to employees.

The disadvantage, of course, is that health benefits become an impediment to changing employment, and compound the economic difficulty of losing or leaving a job. I suggest that we eliminate the employee's tax break on employer-paid health care, and replace it with a deduction for medical expenses, including medical insurance -- without any requirement that these expenditures exceed a certain percentage of income. This will provide an incentive to have your own insurance, rather than be on the dole with my VA For All plan, above. In addition, it will provide some connection between the consumer of health care and the cost of same.

3. We should do something to restore health insurance to its role as insurance. It currently covers several things (birth and birth control, to cite two contradictory examples) that are not traditionally insurable risks. I rather suspect maintenance-type health care would be cheaper if we paid for it the way we pay for car repair.

4. We need tort reform that respects freedom of contract. A doctor should not feel compelled to provide the very best treatment if it costs 100 times as much as the next best treatment, and is .001% better. Virtually all health care recipients have sufficient intelligence to make those sorts of decisions themselves.

5. We should have used some of that pork-barrel money (disguised as "stimulus" money) to build and staff a lot of new med schools.

This is just an outline, but I think it's far better than giving the government control over 18% of American GDP.

OK. I've got my blindfold on, and they've given me my cigarette. Fire away!"

John
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Oct 30, 2013 - 07:44pm PT
Who I voted for for POTUS is completely irrelevant to the ineptitude and lack of leadership of Barack Obama.

He is an embarrassment to our nation, and will go down in history as one of the most destructive administrations ever known.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 08:16pm PT
Dave Kos wrote:
If we had a functional congress, they could introduce legislation that would fix these problems and make the system even better.

Dave,
I think that the reason this issue is so contentious is that it was passed on a straight party line vote using a sneaky parliamentary procedure to bypass the super majority normally required.

All major social legislation ever passed has had strong bi-partisan support and was then accepted by the vast majority of citizens. You may despise the other party, but you have to live with them.
Gridlock usually occurs without compromise. Democracy is messy.

Democrats (and unfortunately the rest of us) are reaping the "fruits" of their own hyper partisanship, and I'm no f&%$#@g republican.
Pass it before you know what's in it? How is that intelligent?


I like the solutions that JEleazarian offered up. As for now, we are into the ACA. I hope it works out, but I remain skeptical for now.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 30, 2013 - 08:24pm PT
TWO MILLION AMERICANS WILL LOSE THEIR POLICIES AND HAVE TO GET A NEW ONE!!!!!1111

In other words, less than 1% of the population will have fewer choices in their coverage options. And for many of that 1%, the choice they wanted may have actually been substandard.
\
(It's more like 8-10% of the insured population)

That's only because employer group plans were unconstitutionally and unilaterally exempted by Barry for another year in defiance of the law as written.

A year from now the rest of us get f*#ked!


Unless of course you are a member of the ruling political class and are therefore exempt.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 30, 2013 - 08:46pm PT
Oh just stop it..

all this emphasis on "tort reform" as a real smart "solution" to the massive problems in America's healthcare system is....laughably partisan and hugely, hugely irrelevant to fixing the problems

"partisan" because JohnE, being someone who votes Republican, has it in his head that doctors' personal income is so touchingly limited by the amount of medical malpractice they pay,
but more importantly John's hidden agenda is his contention that Lawyers who represent patients who have a grievance with their doctor or surgeon are supported in those efforts because they contribute money to Democratic politicos

this angers John, apparently because giving money to politicians who you support is, i don't know, wrong or sleazy or something, never mind John's own strong support for the righteousness of the Supreme Court's decision of allowing full freedom of "speech" in the Citizens United decision


let us be clear, limiting awards to patients for successful lawsuits is chicken feed, period

tell us John, what is your party's "plan" to expand healthcare to tens of millions without it?

tell us how you will eliminate denying healthcare for almost 50% who DO have childhood Asthma or any of the other many many "pre existing conditions"

tell us sbout your party's plan to even try to rein in the rapidly rising premiums costs,
and all without expanding the pools by adding many more healthy payers

your opposition to the ACA is purely partisan, just like Cragmans, and Andersons, etc etc

not racist opposition because you would oppose it if even Hillary were President

you oppose because at the very core of "conservatism" is fear, fear of changing the status quo

John Duffield

Mountain climber
New York
Oct 30, 2013 - 09:34pm PT

He is an embarrassment to our nation, and will go down in history as one of the most destructive administrations ever known.


Not so sure of this. The deficit is down to the lowest since before 2008.

In the long run, blowing a ton on a corrupt website procural, won't be as important.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 01:16am PT
but more importantly John's hidden agenda is his contention that Lawyers who represent patients who have a grievance with their doctor or surgeon are supported in those efforts because they contribute money to Democratic politicos

No. I simply think contract, rather than tort, law forms a better basis for rational health care.

Buzzer .,
You got caught in some right wing propaganda lie their brother

We all knew what the President said, and continued to say for the last five years: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. They was a straight up lie. No amount of spin can change that.

John
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 31, 2013 - 08:11am PT
Don't fret Boehner , Cruz and lynch mob are working on a better plan to save you money on health insurance...Your happy meal coupons are redeemable at all blue shield death panels...
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Oct 31, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
It's good to have a healthy dose of scientific skepticism when it comes to complicated political solutions that politicians exempt themselves from.

Larry, I assume you are not a complete dunce. Perhaps you can cite that provision that exempts politicians?

Perhaps it is the same section that exempts them from wearing motorcycle helmets? Or having to ride in child carseats? Or from laws against sleeping under bridges?

yep, I think it is EXACTLY those sections.....
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Oct 31, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
Obama = Glitch
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Oct 31, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
Tarzan writes:

"I don't have insurance and have not forever. I guess I'll have to kneel to the taxcollector and pay the fine."



Maybe not.

The way I understand it, the IRS can only collect on the fine if they owe you a refund. There's no line on your income tax form requiring either proof of Obamacare participation or $95 in the red column.

Set up your tax withholding so instead of getting a refund you owe money at the end of the year, and you'll duck the Obama tax-fine-penalty.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 03:37pm PT
"We all knew what the President said, and continued to say for the last five years: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. They was a straight up lie. No amount of spin can change that."


The quintessential response to this:

In other words, "we lied."

John
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Oct 31, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
I agree, the "you can keep your plan" messaging was poor. But is the fact that it is not exactly true really meaningful?

Any given year a pretty fair percentage of people have to change their plans simply because employers/insurance companies change the plans. So a lot of people are already seeing this. And almost everybody has been seeing price increases as well. So it's not as if the ACA is suddenly causing increases in a system that had been stable or going down.

The website thing is a problem...that should have been much more well-executed. As to whether the rest of it is a problem, I'd argue that it is too early to tell. It was an effort to do something to try to fix a broken system. You threw out a decent list earlier in this thread John...it would be great to see a few elected GOP folks actually propose changes instead of just trying to shoot down the ACA.

Beyond that, one only has to look at this site to see how broken things are. On almost any given day, there's a thread on the front page appealing for help with covering someone's medical costs. I don't mind helping folks out, and I've contributed to a few of these. It shows we're a good community. But it shouldn't have to be anywhere near as common as it seems to be.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 03:56pm PT
What do you mean by "not exactly true," Steve? The true statement would be, Under the ACA, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance unless the ACA won't let you keep your insurance."

In other words, we make no promises.

John
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Oct 31, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
By not exactly true, I mean that clearly in many cases people are having to switch. But many of those people would actually have to switch anyway, the way things have been in the insurance market in recent years.
And in many cases the switch that people are having to make is to plans that are actually better. They cover preventative stuff and have lower copays and deductibles. Probably not the case all the time. But again, are the number of cases where this is completely not true really meaningful?
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Oct 31, 2013 - 04:25pm PT
you can't get over the fact that people should no more be allowed to have inadquate health insurance

That is the part people dont get, same with the guy who said all his wife wanted was catastrophic insurance.

Thats not how insurance works, the payments of the many pay for the losses of the few. If we all just did the bare minimum it wouldnt work, in any type of insurance.

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Oct 31, 2013 - 04:37pm PT


"Thus far EVERYONE i know has either had their insurance cancelled, or their premiums went up"...

Sounds to me like they got FUKED by the Insurance companies...

Just another reason this sh!t NEEDS to be CHANGED!!!...

Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 31, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
In other words, you can't get over the fact that people should no more be allowed to have inadquate health insurance than they should be allowed to drive around in cars with no headlights, bad brakes, no smog cert etc. You certainly can keep your car, just like you're being allowed to keep the same health coverage- as long as they both meet standards that society decides are adequate.


My private insurance policy is being terminated. I will now pay more for less. Straight up MASSIVE tax increase on the middle/ lower middle class that operate small business. No denying that. Oh yeah, my policy is cancelled because it does not contain coverage for things I will never use at this point in my life ie maternity coverage.

Obamacare is just another mis guided idealistic pie in the sky social policy to attract voters
that will end in classic inefficient government style...failure.






Salamanizer

Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
Oct 31, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
Bullshit hedge, not an accurate analogy at all.
I had good insurance, it was $150 dollars a month. It had all the coverage I wanted. I can keep an identical plan for $1200 a month. Since I cannot afford that I need to file for Obama Care which is going to cost $700 a month for a bunch of coverage I don't want or need. Obama Care forces me to buy a Ferrari when all I want and can afford is a nice midsize commuter.

It's only affordable or free if you make no money, pay no taxes or contribute anything to society. But if you have a job and make money, prepare to pay. Socialism at its best.

Strait up lie, but what do you expect from the most corrupt, close doored, scandal ridden president in American history?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
forget discussing the ACA with people like JohnE and others

they oppose it, period, end of story

Yes, I do, for all of the reasons I've stated over the past five years.

I do, however, have quite a bit of trouble getting over the cavalier attitude so many on this forum display toward the lies the ACA's proponents made in support of the law, and particularly that you can keep your insurance if you like it. I guess, to them, it just wasn't news that those statements were known to be misleading and false when made.

I'm also bemused by the statement about how insurance works. The statement that insurance for catastrophes only cannot work defies hundreds, if not thousands of years of insurance law. (For those who question my use of "thousands" in the previous sentence, markets for maritime insurance of cargo existed in the Roman Empire, and probably predate it.)

"Insurance" consists of pooling of risks, against which everyone in the pool agrees to be insured. The idea that insuring only catastrophic health care costs won't work because the customers need to be in the pool for everyone is rather like saying that flood insurance won't work unless people who live where there is no danger of flooding need to pay for flood insurance so those who live where there is a flood risk can afford the insurance. Oops! Federal flood insurance, subsidized by taxpayers, actually has that basis, but I digress. . .

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
By the way, if I don't control pop-ups or drop-downs, every time I click onto this thread, I get a drop-down ad for health care coverage.

This has nothing to do with this site or cmac, by the way. About the only one worse is the drop-down for finding a bankruptcy lawyer every time I access the website for the bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (but, fortunately, not for any other bankruptcy court website -- yet). That one's particularly annoying because the features I need there require me to turn down my pop-up controls. Grrr.

John
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 31, 2013 - 05:35pm PT
Problem is the young and healthy are not going to sign up when they see what they are going to pay. Also, employers will offer subsidized healthcare payments only to the top brass creating more that choose not to buy insurance.

Financial liability is going to hit the middle class square in the discretionary income pocket. This will cause our economy to rebound LOLOLOL

Young punks are not going to give up their meager hard earned wages to subsidize the boomer geezers.


Obamacare is great in theory. Implementation and future funding will be a disaster.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Oct 31, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
Time will tell Norton.

Obamacare will be just another notch on the bedpost of the selfish generation that has and will continue loading future generations with debt and liability.

No matter, you will be gone and will have exploited the system for all it is worth.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
It does appear that the current Obamacare implementation, like the health insurance business in general, does not treat insurance purely as a catastrophic risk mitigation but rather includes a "prepaid health care" component.

That is exactly my point. I was criticized earlier because my argument suggested that not everyone needed to buy prepaid health care. The response was that I was wrong because everyone needed to buy it to share the risk of being unable to pay. That's an argument for an insurance model, not a mandated prepaid healthcare model.

John
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 31, 2013 - 06:38pm PT
What's "extreme"about this?

113TH CONGRESS
1ST
SESSION
S.ll
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to ensure that
individuals can keep their health insurance coverage.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
llllllllll
llllllllll
introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on
llllllllll
A BILL
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
to ensure that individuals can keep their health insurance
coverage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
3
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘If You Like Your Health Plan, You Can Keep it Act’’.
5
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
7
(a) I
GENERAL
.—Part 2 of subtitle C of title I of
8
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42
9

Whole text as pdf here

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/If%20You%20Like%20Your%20Plan%20Text%20%281%29.pdf

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 31, 2013 - 06:44pm PT
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/30/a-fatal-conceit-how-obamacare-explains-the-liberal-worldview/
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2013 - 07:23pm PT
But we probably also agree that this flaw can be remedied without dismantling the entire program, shutting down the federal government, and/or impeaching the president.

So why does the Republican party insist upon these extreme alternatives?
We do agree, Dave, and the shutdown played out almost exactly as I said it would, except that the Obama administration has been sufficiently opaque and incompetent to give the Tea Partiers credence among those who should know better.

Then again, if the Republicans really cared about governance back in 2004 when they had both houses of Congress plus the presidency (Yes, I know the Dems say that's not enough, but I digress again), they would have tackled a comprehensive overhaul of the health-care system. Instead, they tried to be Democrats-lite, and passed a prescription drug benefit that was unfunded and undermined Medicare's solvency. If the Democrats had offered a better alternative than John Kerry, I would probably have voted Democrat in 2004.

To me, the Republican actions then, together with DeLay's nefarious tactics, showed little difference from what the Democrats did, but with less heart and less brains -- a bad combination. Once the Democrats took over, they simply ignored the Republicans, as mentioned by others, and we ended up with a bill to which a very large proportion of the population is opposed. Selling it by lying about the effect on policies has now come home to roost as well. How do centrists get a voice these days?

John
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 31, 2013 - 07:42pm PT
Do not panic. Everything is under control.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Transmen and Transwomen and people of uncertain gender identities, some of you may be alarmed by recent reports of malfunctioning health care websites and policy cancellations.

Do not be alarmed. We know what we are doing.

Health care plans are not being cancelled. Opportunities are being transitioned. Some people are being moved from bad health care plans to good health care plans with higher deductibles and higher premiums that will provide transmen with maternity care and people of uncertain gender identities with drug counseling and mental health treatment.

This is a good thing. Warning. This is a good thing.

You are being transitioned. Why do you resist?

Forget your old health plan. It was placed in the trunk of a Prius at 3 AM this morning, taken to a frozen lake outside an organic poultry plant in Minnesota and shot twice in the head. It was a bad plan. It has transitioned to no longer being a plan. We have a better plan for you.

Go to Healthcare.gov and… correction, do not go there. Forget that you were told to go there or not to go there. Forget that it even existed. Forget that you read this.

Healthcare.gov is working. Do not visit Healthcare.gov to confirm that it is working. If you wish to transition to your opportunity, why not apply by phone or mail or carrier pigeon?

And don’t be alarmed. You are being given a great opportunity to transition to being a better person.

Your old health plan selfishly paid for your health care. Your new health plan will pay for everyone’s healthcare. Your premiums reflect the number of people who need mental health counseling, drug counseling and sex change operations in your area. This is your opportunity to give back.

Only the very rich, and you, have had their opportunities transitioned. If anyone tries to tell you otherwise, go to Healthcare.gov and report them immediately.

Correction, do not go to Healthcare.gov. The site is down. Tweet to Jim Messina. Correction, Jim Messina has transitioned his opportunity to become a transwoman on his new health plan and is unavailable to take your denunciation.

Write your denunciation on recycled rice paper and mail it to Healthcare.gov 935382 Federal Way, Washington D.C. Expect a response and prison sentence in 6 to 8 months.

Do not be alarmed. If you resist, you will be transitioned.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/10/your-opportunity-is-being-transitioned.html
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 31, 2013 - 07:51pm PT
Dave Kos wrote:
the fact that you quoted the "pass it before you know what's in it" propaganda point means that you are already watching Fox News. That line, taken out of context, is a complete misrepresentation.

Fox News? I only have Netflix in my house, and only watch that for 4 hours a week. You might not know what I watch, but at least the president's home boys do.
The quote I used may have been taken out of context, but in my defense and considering other things I have heard Pelosi say, it is very easy to believe. In addition, that propaganda quote pales next to the president's mendacious assertions. My mistake on a quote, but I'll hold on to my healthy skepticism of ACA due to anecdotal but true stories from several friends who are affected negatively.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Oct 31, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
Ken M wrote:
Larry, I assume you are not a complete dunce. Perhaps you can cite that provision that exempts politicians?

Hey Ken,
As I replied to jghedge: "I stand corrected. A one year waiver for certain groups. As I have mentioned, I have a life beyond watching the news and I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out a very complicated issue. Kudos to you for knowing so much".

I will add that even though many who know me may disagree, your assumption is mostly correct.
stevep

Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
Oct 31, 2013 - 11:36pm PT
Yes, many of these policies do have preventative medicine inclusions that weren't in people's previous catastrophic coverage. That's a good thing if you're trying to reduce health care costs across the board in this country.
It's a lot cheaper for all of us to pay pennies so that people can be covered for pregnancies, mammography, colonoscopies, etc. All of those things can result in huge costs without the preventative side. Seems to me there has been at least one individual on this site that died from colon cancer that would probably have been treatable if detected earlier (at least that is what he said).

At this point, you're 100% correct John. I don't give a flying flip if Obama wasn't being truthful about the plan thing. He was trying to get more people covered, more preventative medicine in place, and other things to reduce costs. I'm willing to forgive a fair amount for those good goals. Especially when the GOP isn't offering up squat. And I've spent the last 15 years working in healthcare, so I have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Oct 31, 2013 - 11:53pm PT
How do centrists get a voice these days?

John

Join the Democratic party. There is no longer any place in the Republican tent for centrists.

Curt
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 01:15am PT
Credit: JEleazarian

John
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 1, 2013 - 02:55am PT
Why do I have to pay and these guys are exempt? Isn't this a all for one and one for all type thing?


Because they are self-insured, and they ALREADY pay to insure their employees to the same degree that is required by the ACA.

Ideally, all companies would be in this category. But some give inadequate insurance, and so are not exempt.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 1, 2013 - 03:00am PT
One thing that no one seems to have noticed: there are many insurance companies that are raising their rates in a way that is not rationally related to the ACA.

Some are cancelling some policies, requiring people to purchase a new policy at higher prices.

This should result in vast increases in profits.

But there is a catch. The law requires that 85% of the premium be spent on medical care. If less it, it must be refunded.

However, that repayment won't take place for a year. Effectivly, it is a loan of money for no interest!

And, if the ins co's manage to get the ACA repealed.....they keep the money!

Follow the money.......
raw

Mountain climber
Malibu
Nov 1, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

4 Pinocchios, for those who count on that scale....
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 1, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
A law sold as the Affordable anything Act fails if the price increases for anybody.

The whole thing was built on a foundation of bullsh#t.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 01:08pm PT


"A law sold as the Affordable anything Act fails if the price increases for anybody."...


That's not true...


"Affordable" means just that...

Even if it increases for some, that SOME can "AFFORD" it...

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 1, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
A lot of people are saying they can't afford the mandated price increases.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 01:10pm PT


When did "Saying" and "Doing" equal the same???...

Salamanizer

Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
Nov 1, 2013 - 04:12pm PT
Even if it increases for some, that SOME can "AFFORD" it...

What complete and total bullsh#t. How can someone be so ignorant to tell me what "I" can afford?
700 dollars for bullshit obamacare a month is affordable?
That is a quarter of my total income. I have about 2000 dollars a month to pay for mortgage and bills. Now I have a700 dollar healthcare bill to pay and you say I can "afford" that?

So in your mind I should have to sell my house, reduce my bills by living at the poverty level so that I can afford some healthcare I neither need or want?

Well I'll just go ahead and say what everyone in my age bracket from the ages of 27 to 35 is going to tell ya... Go F*#k Yourself!!! I ain't paying it.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 04:17pm PT

You should have bought a CHEAPER house...

;-)




EDITED:

By the way...

If you can afford to pay a $2,000 mortgage...

you're NOT broke or even close...


locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 04:20pm PT

You might even have to skip that Latte on occasion...

Oh my!!!...




EDITED and Post Script:

That you may have difficulty affording to make your house payment cannot be blamed on "Obamacare"...

It was your choice to purchase the place that is costing you so much...

johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 1, 2013 - 04:39pm PT
There's no way anyone could know at this point if the new policy is a net negative for anyone. It hasn't even gone into effect.

Got a wake up call for you. I work for a Fortune 500 company. Our health care providers held a benefit conference the other day. Our premiums will go up 44%. The deductibles will sky rocket.

This is a turd that was never read and passed by a congress that is already opted out of it.

Salamanizer

Trad climber
The land of Fruits & Nuts!
Nov 1, 2013 - 04:49pm PT
I don't drink that trash nor will I pay for it which is part of the reason why I can afford to live in a moderate middle class neighborhood in my area and live in the bottom bracket of middle class. I've fought my way and busted my ass, all the while making good decisions that have allowed me to get here. Sorry you missed the boat. But you should have put down the climbing rope and picked up a shovel a little more often.

...but what I can't afford is to go out and buy a sporty car and shell out the $700 a month payment on top of all that. Which is why I don't have one. It would be an irresponsible thing to do. It would put me over my budget and deep into the red which is what obamacare is trying to do.
So all the ACA does for me is put healthcare out of my reach and turn me from someone who was happily insured, into someone who no longer has health insurance. Good job dumbasses!!!

Obamacare = Set to FAIL...

Edited to add:
That you may have difficulty affording to make your house payment cannot be blamed on "Obamacare"...

It was your choice to purchase the place that is costing you so much...

What a completely asinine statement. Yes! I chose to buy the house I did, but what I did not choose was to purchase healthcare at a 700% higher rate than I currently have, by having Obamacare shoved down my throat.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 04:58pm PT
Although I have posted my own ideas about what a good health care policy change would be since at least 2009, certain posters continue to allege I am against healthcare in some way. I don't think additional posts by me will add anything on that count at the moment.

Some, however, recognizing that I really do care about health care and what our policy should be, have alleged that the conservative groups, rather than one individual on ST, have no plan. Not true.

I am not a particular fan of the Heritage Foundation, and consider them culpable in the shutdown fiasco, but they at least have also published their health care plan:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/after-repeal-of-obamacare-moving-to-patient-centered-market-based-health-care?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

It remains to be seen who, if anyone will read it or respond to it with substantive argument on this forum.

John

x15x15

climber
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
I can't believe I gave up climbing 7 days a week to get a damn job.
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
EDITED:

The reason I don't have insurance currently is because the c*#k sucking insurance companies may insure people with pre-diagnosed issues...

But they WON'T cover the pre-diagnosed issues or their prescriptions...

I look forward to "Obamacare" and am WILLING to pay my share without WHINING...



EDITED:

I don't drink Lattes either...

;-)

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:10pm PT


Ron...

the concert wasn't held in Woodstock...

However, it was originally scheduled to be...

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:12pm PT

Exactly!!!...


LOL!!!...




EDITED:

I am going to do some back deleting now because the sh!t I posted makes me look pretentious...



locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:20pm PT


"$700 a month payment on top of all that"...


My OUT OF POCKET monthly prescriptions are approximately $600.00...



$700.00 per month for coverage that would cover prescriptions as well???...

Hmmm...





Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:35pm PT
I am not a particular fan of the Heritage Foundation, and consider them culpable in the shutdown fiasco, but they at least have also published their health care plan...

Uh, the Affordable Care Act is a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan.

Curt
mucci

Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:38pm PT
$700.00 per month for coverage that would cover prescriptions as well???...

Hmmm...




Hahha good luck with that!

So many are







































Gonna DIE!!!
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 05:40pm PT
I agree, Curt, which is yet another reason why I don't see how Heritage can take the position on the shutdown they took with a straight face.

John
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 1, 2013 - 06:24pm PT
Affordable Care Act is a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan. Curt

Curt,
I have read where Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation wrote a 4 page document on healthcare but I haven't seen it. Maybe a link to what you're referring to, it could be informative.
The ACA document is about 35,000 pages long. Explains why most people, myself included, don't know squat about it. At least we're slowly finding out.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 1, 2013 - 06:37pm PT
Slowly finding out it's really the,

Unaffordable Healthcare Tax
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 07:17pm PT
Jay Leno had the best line:

"More than 700 fake ObamaCare websites have been created..It's simple to identify the phony sites though because they are easy to log on to"

6 Signups on the first day?? This has to be the most stunning failure in the history of the "Progressive movement". If Obama would have come out on October 1st and just said they had completely forgot to create a Healthcare exchange, and they need another 3 years, they might have saved face somewhat.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Nov 1, 2013 - 07:27pm PT
I can't believe how you pinkos can keep carrying water for this guy.

I cant believe there is even one person who actually wants to keep anything remotely similar to the third world health care system you used to have.

CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 07:40pm PT
I doubt there is a fix.
A corrupt for-profit health care system just does not work.
When I rolled into work today at one of the six large hospitals for a city of 100000 I couldn't find parking. Maybe a thousand cars at a hospital?? Why? I have been asking myself the wtf question for years. This is a place of illness, why the hell are all these people here?

Funny how other sector of the economy that is not coddled and subsidized by Government works very efficiently, even though it is all "for profit". Without Government subsidies, cronyism, regulations that keep us from buying cheaper drugs and services (like Medicare Part D), Healthcare would be a much more efficient market, in which profit seeking executives would have to lower prices in competition. If you want to see how it would look, simply look at the services that aren't covered by insurance or subsidies, such as Lasik. The technology gets better every year, and the price comes down. THAT is a "for-profit" system in a nutshell.

Ahhhh the evils of profit! Every job I have ever had has been because someone wanted to make profit. In an efficient market, free of stifling regulation and cronyism, profit comes from adding value- that means that to get it, you have to provide a service that makes someone even more money than they are paying you. This is where wealth actually comes from - not from Ben Bernanke's printing press.
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
I cant believe there is even one person who actually wants to keep anything remotely similar to the third world health care system you used to have.

Welcome to Obamacare, 4th World Healthcare for the 21st Century!

We "used to have" a pretty good healthcare system when I was a kid. What happened to it? Government, that is what. Look at this chart of Government spending on Healthcare vs. GDP:

Credit: CrackAddict

Government spending has skyrocketed as they have taken over Health care, which correlates strongly with the amount of dysfunction.

Personally, I think having socialized medicine would be much better that what is happening now, as Government could at least set rates. Throwing money at the private sector distorts the market, and creates dysfunction. This is exactly the same path that Education has followed also.
CrackAddict

Trad climber
Canoga Park, CA
Nov 1, 2013 - 07:55pm PT
People stopped dying when they were 65.

Life expectancies have barely changed since the 60s, and most of it is attributable to lower infant mortality.

I have heard from a nurse that Canada does not treat people over 70 for certain things like heart attacks? Not sure if it is true, but since 2/3 of the Health Care spending in the U.S. is for "end of life", it seems like it would definitely cut costs.
WBraun

climber
Nov 1, 2013 - 08:00pm PT
Human being number one needs is oxygen.

Next is food.

Next is health care.

Without those you can't live.

Thus the material body is the source of all misery.

Why you people so miserable .....?
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 1, 2013 - 08:01pm PT
Curt,
I have read where Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation wrote a 4 page document on healthcare but I haven't seen it. Maybe a link to what you're referring to, it could be informative.

I'm referring to this:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/conservative-origins-of-obamacare/?_r=0

The design for the ACA was one of conservative, Republican origin.

Curt
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 1, 2013 - 08:08pm PT
The design for the ACA was one of conservative, Republican origin.

all the more reason to oppose it then
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Nov 1, 2013 - 08:09pm PT
I have heard from a nurse that Canada does not treat people over 70 for certain things like heart attacks?

Thats reasonably amusing, but the only place I know of where they ask you for your credentials before sending the ambulance is the USA.

locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Nov 1, 2013 - 08:34pm PT


photo not found
Missing photo ID#328551
...

johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 1, 2013 - 09:29pm PT
Obama and the she bitch have trust upon us a health care plane they NEVER READ. And they are opted out of.

Drink the kool aid.
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 1, 2013 - 09:39pm PT
Face the music. Our gover goobooer's don't care about the future of the population they are supposed the represent. Doesn't matter whether they are dems or pubs, they just want to fleece us like sutpid lambs.

Werner is right.....
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 1, 2013 - 09:41pm PT
Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's Bro) is he philosophical author of the Unaffordable Healthcare Act and reflects "progressive" thinking all the way back to the eugenicists of the turn of the last century.



His theory;

the Complete lives system.

http://bme.ccny.cuny.edu/faculty/mbikson/Courses/BMESeniorDesign/EthicsOfHealthRationing.pdf


Anyone not of "instrumental Value" particularly those under 14 or over 40 are dead weight and not socially productive and economic priorities should outweigh all others.

Are those that pursue potentially injurious and completely non productive pursuits like climbing or base jumping also candidates for the euthanasia needle, or the amputators saw?

Welcome to the Brave New World!

tornado

climber
lawrence kansas
Nov 1, 2013 - 09:52pm PT
can we call all canadians "frost dicks" from here on out? awesome.
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:00pm PT
can we call all canadians "frost dicks" from here on out? awesome.

Yeah, they are the one's laughing. This is serious shee.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:05pm PT
May I ask this question? Why is it that Americans don't have the freedom to choose their own health insurance? I just don't get it. Why must the liberal nanny state make decisions for us? We can make them ourselves, thank you very much. It's like choosing a car, buying a home or investing in a stock. We can handle it.

..............

No, this is federal coercion at its worst. And that's why the public is turning against it. It's not freedom.

Of course, there are other structural problems to Obamacare that are both unfair and unaffordable. Mainly, younger healthy people are not going to subsidize older sicker folks. We should take care of the latter with transparent government subsidies, and not by trying to redistribute resources (again) from the young to the old.

Or then there's the Medicaid entitlement. It's already out of control and close to bankruptcy. But in the early days of Obamacare, Medicaid sign-ups are exploding, all while sign-ups for private plans on the new exchanges are minuscule.

Between the president's broken promises, the millions of policy cancellations, the continued website breakdowns and the unaffordable, unfair con game between the healthy young and the sicker old, this Obamacare monster is well on its way to collapsing of its own weight.

But here's the bigger point: All this is the inevitable result of massive central-planning exercises to control the economy. That's not freedom.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101164217
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:10pm PT
"If you like your plan you can keep it"

BS. I lost my plan and will pay much more in the future for less coverage. Obama flat out lied.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:26pm PT
"If you like your plan you can keep it"

BS. I lost my plan and will pay much more in the future for less coverage. Obama flat out lied.

Oh please...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/01/1252375/-Consumer-Reports-destroys-rate-shock-horror-story?Detail=facebook

Curt
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Nov 1, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
The truth shall set you free

Obama: Always The Last One To Know

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Confirmed Secretary Sebelius’ Claims That The Administration “Did Not Know” The Significance Of The Glitches Until After The Rollout Began
http://www.gop.com/news/research/last-one-to-know/


Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 1, 2013 - 11:58pm PT
Curt wrote:
The design for the ACA was one of conservative, Republican origin.

So I read Krugman's column and went to the site he linked. I guess I don't understand why not even one of even the most moderate republicans voted for ACA. What were the republican demands that were rejected by democrats?

This reminds me of the "fix" for Social Security.
Back in the 80's, Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed partial privatization of SS to keep it solvent. The republicans rejected it because it was a democrat idea.
After the 2000 election, George W Bush proposed partial privatization of SS to keep it solvent. The democrats rejected it because it was a republican idea.

My instincts tell me that both parties suck.
As the great philosopher Rodney King once said: "Can't we all just get along?"
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 2, 2013 - 12:03am PT
Oh please...

It is true. Suck Obama's dick as much as you want.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 01:28am PT
jghedge wrote:
You obviously don't follow politics too much

The way some of us prioritize our lives, we would see that as a feature, not a bug.
I'm just looking for the truth. Too many here are blindly shouting "Hurray for my team".
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 01:31am PT
jghedge wrote:
JUNK HEALTH INSURANCE is either being upgraded to meet current standards, or is being cancelled.

My ex-wife was making a rational decision with her catastrophic type plan when she decided not to pool her money with others for the day-to-day expenses incurred before anything big happens. She decided not to subsidize other people's routine health care. She had insurance to cover her if something really expensive were to come up.

Now those who "know better than her", of what is in her own best interests, are deciding for her.
Busybodies.
Wonderful.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 2, 2013 - 03:46am PT
It is true. Suck Obama's dick as much as you want.

Unfortunately, I'm at a loss to counter such a profoundly intellectual proposition. Do you have anything remotely constructive to add?

Curt
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 2, 2013 - 08:26am PT
jghedge wrote:
There has to be gov't cost controls on medical goods and services -

No doubt the healthcare system has been dysfunctional.
Should the government impose cost controls on medical schools? (That may self correct with online courses)
Taxes on lifestyle choices that may impact the system? (Climbing risks?)
New laws to restrict lifestyle choices? (Top rope only on this route)
Tort reform? Cost control malpractice insurance?
As the wish list grows, the army needed to regulate and oversee it grows.
Cost controls on the government overseers of healthcare? (Weren't middle men part of the cost problem before?)

I don't have answers, just a lot of questions. I have seen a safety culture grow in the corporate world to the point of being ridiculous, but also reducing injuries. (A pumpkin carving with kids the other day would have been shut down in the corporate world with adults doing it without cut gloves, non-cutting cutting tools, safety glasses, steel toed shoes, ergonomic chairs and tables, etc).

Riley Wyna and JEleazarian, as two examples, have made excellent and compelling points from opposite sides of the issue and I thank them for their civil contributions. Partisan hoorahs have only illustrated what's wrong in Washington DC.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 2, 2013 - 10:43am PT
We have not yet been reduced to savagery, but our incompetence increases in large groups to such a staggering extent that it often seems not to be worth the trouble. Individual geniuses can occasionally carry large groups on their shoulders, micromanaging them, terrorizing them and motivating them, the way that tribal chieftains do, but without that singular personality the whole thing collapses.

The United States government is the ultimate giant unworkable mess. It is a living cargo cult where everyone marches around following routines that are supposed to yield great prosperity, but never do. The processes themselves are broken and make no sense, but the cargo culturers of the government cannot and will not hear that. They know that the government will magically make everything work.

Because government is progress. Government is modernity. Government is magic.

The cargo culters on the islands, who once witnessed the might and power of the American military during WW2 make American flags and uniforms, they build airstrips and wooden control towers, and wait for the planes to land and make them rich. They don't understand why these things should work, but they do them anyway because that is how they remember it happening.

Our own cargo culters invoke FDR and JFK, they talk about the New Deal and the Great Society, they make grand promises and roll out big programs, and then they wait for it all to work. They don't understand themselves how or why it would work. But government is magic and the appearance of a thing is just as good as a real deal.

Build a website and it will work. Pass a law and they will come. Get a degree and you're competent.

There is no need to know how to do a thing. You don't need engineers or competent men. All you need to do is remember the great dreams of the past, listen to a few inspirational JFK speeches and then carve a computer out of wood and wait for free health care to arrive.

In cargo cult America, the food is free, the cell phones are free and the money can be printed forever because government is magic.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/government-is-magic.html
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2013 - 09:51am PT

Update from here: my state doesn't have the first person signed up yet. The governor has announced that he has chosen to get a bunch of bureaucrats hired to print up and process written applications. The first of 7,000 apps should just be arriving now they say.

That's change. Here's to hope.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 5, 2013 - 09:43pm PT
Now the President is getting called out for lying again - his recent televised speech on health care. Don't know why he couldn't have just told the truth, we'd understand and wait. Wouldn't we? It's true, the folks taking the calls have to use the computer and it's screwed up.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/05/obama-relies-on-false-hope-to-sell-obama

"Obama Relies on False Hope to Sell Obamacare
Even the statement that consumers can apply for insurance without using HealthCare.gov was deceptive.

When the October launch of Obamacare’s online insurance portals went disastrously awry, the Obama administration had a handy communications strategy ready: Distract people with false hope.


On Oct. 21, as the online federal exchange system at the heart of President Obama’s health law entered its third week of widespread failures, the president gave a televised speech in which he admitted that there were “kinks in the system,” but also insisted that the exchange problems could be worked around, because the online insurance portals weren’t the only way to enroll in coverage.

“While the website will ultimately be the easiest way to buy insurance through the marketplace, it isn't the only way,” he said. “I want to emphasize this … you can still buy the same quality affordable insurance plans available on the marketplace the old-fashioned way, offline—either over the phone or in person.” The application process, Obama said, would only take about 25 minutes for an individual.

As workarounds go, it was appealing enough. It was also basically useless. The 25-minute application process he touted didn’t actually provide way to avoid the problems of the exchanges. That’s because the paper applications would eventually have to be submitted into the online enrollment system. And if the system didn’t work, then neither would the supposed workarounds.

This was not exactly a secret to the administration officials managing the Obamacare rollout. They were well aware that paper applications filled out with the help of navigators or call center workers were still dependent on the functionality of the online system. Yet the president went on television to promote the phone and paper processes anyway, reading out the toll-free call-in number like a late-night TV pitchman. Kathleen Sebelius used a similar line in Phoenix a few days later.

The reasoning behind the decision to make workarounds a focus of the president’s message can perhaps be found in newly leaked meeting notes from the Obamacare “war room.” Notes from a meeting held the morning of Oct. 11 show that when questions arose about paper applications, the discussion turned to their symbolic impact. “The paper applications allow people to feel like they are moving forward in the process and provides another option,” the leaked document says. But that additional option provided no substantive benefit. “At the end of the day, we are all stuck in the same queue.”

Similar thinking seems to have informed the decision by some navigators—individuals paid to assist with enrollment in coverage through the law—to encourage individuals to fill out paper applications. "Navigators are seeing people very frustrated and walking away,” notes from the Oct. 15 meeting say, “so they are turning to paper applications to protect their reputations as people in the communities who can help, even though paper applications will not have a quicker result necessarily."

The motivation here was twofold: to try to keep people from being discouraged, and to protect their own reputations as purveyors of help. But let’s be honest: The hope they offered wasn’t real. It was a deception designed to hide the fact that they had nothing to offer.

Six days later, when President Obama stood on the White House lawn and made the same pitch to the entire nation, that was still true. Indeed, it’s been true throughout the administration’s health law sales pitches.

The president’s promises that individuals could keep health plans and doctors were false, and his senior advisers knew it, but decided to mislead people anyway because it made for a better sales pitch. The administration’s repeated assurances that the exchange system was on schedule and on track to work were either intentionally incompetent or deliberately misleading. Obama promised the exchanges would work fine despite not having run complete system tests; multiple senior administration officials claimed they didn't have enrollment data, even though it's clear that Obamacare's overseers had early numbers in hand. On health care, the administration has never had much to offer except distraction, deception, and false hope designed to bolster its own reputation and hide the empty promises it could not keep.

With this record of evasions and incompetence, it is impossible to trust anything the administration says about the health law and its implementation. The only questions that remain are how bad it becomes, for how long, and what deceptions remain to be revealed. What, in other words, are we being given false hope about now?"

johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 5, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
It is true. Suck Obama's dick as much as you want.

Curt, yeah, that is a bit over the top and I am now on his NSA radar.

I don't have the time to look into the details, but shouldn't our goober representatives have done their homework before pushing this through?

I am at this point neither dem or pub. They all suck, suck, suck, suck!

I'm all for a national health insurance plan. I hate to see what jello and others are going through and am willing to pony up within reason. But Obama's plan is a turd. He just won't admit it and keeps spinning the BS.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 6, 2013 - 11:04am PT


Well, in Oregon, there are about 140,000 less people who do not have healthcare than before the law went into effect. They got their cancellation notices but nothing available to change too.

Here's NPR's take on via Hot Air: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/05/npr-oregons-exchange-might-actually-be-doing-worse-than-the-federal-site/

Says the Oregonians bungled it worse than the Feds. I'm fully covered from before, but I feel for the folks gonna have to pay out of pocket for any major hospital visits.

By anyones yardstick, having 140,000 with less folks with insurance makes it worse than a "bad rollout with glitches" it makes it disaster. Why were people who had insurance cancelled before they could sign up on the .gov site?
peladob

Mountain climber
Mason City, Iowa
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:26am PT
and the media seems to be doing BHO's damage control.

objectivity is out of style, i guess, if you are a 'news' agency.
Hoser

climber
vancouver
Nov 6, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
I dont know about that.... even Fox news has pieces that agree with the rest of the sane world.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/05/insurance-cancelled-dont-blame-obama-or-aca-blame-america-insurance-companies/
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 6, 2013 - 01:40pm PT
I'm all for a national health insurance plan. I hate to see what jello and others are going through and am willing to pony up within reason. But Obama's plan is a turd. He just won't admit it and keeps spinning the BS.

I honestly think it's way too soon to tell. The healthcare.gov website is certainly a disaster, but that doesn't mean the underlying product is bad. Obama probably shouldn't have said "you can keep your plan if you like it" but I also think that's being overblown by his critics. As others have noted, most of the plans being cancelled were "scam" type plans, collecting premiums and not providing adequate minimum coverage to policy holders.

Curt
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 6, 2013 - 01:47pm PT
Curt, that ISNT being overblown.. Obama said that in EVERY SPEECH he gave on the ACA.

Again, it's been well documented that the vast majority of policies being cancelled were scams. I'm not sure why anybody would have a problem with that.

Curt
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 6, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
We used to fire presidents for such things back when we had some ballz..

Inconvenient Fact= No president to date has been removed from office via the impeachment process.
Degaine

climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
This puts it nicely:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-5-2013/affordable-horror-story
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 6, 2013 - 02:37pm PT

I thought you we're going to pay for your sex change out of pocket?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 6, 2013 - 02:56pm PT

Nov 6, 2013 - 11:07am PT
We used to fire presidents for such things back when we had some ballz..

Inconvenient Fact= No president to date has been removed from office via the impeachment process.


Weve been through THAT before Wade. MANY have been through the impeachment process and some left over that very "this or that" offer.

Congressmen have recently been recalled in COLO too.

How many more lies will it take for some of you??? Yes repubs lie,, but you can NOT deny the fact that obama does it on a regular basis.. You ALL heard him say RED LINE in his speech.. Today he tells us "I DIDNT SAY RED LINE" Really????

Inconvenient Fact= No president to date has been removed from office via the impeachment process. (BTW- this is a documented, proven fact. unlike your claims that the president lies 'on a regular basis.') Have a good Day Ron.



Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 6, 2013 - 03:00pm PT
Inconvenient Fact= No president to date has been removed from office via the impeachment process. Have a good Day Ron.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 03:21pm PT
Whatever is wrong with our healthcare system, at least we're not this bad
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_SICK_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-06-00-10-00
//
The country's 1999 constitution guarantees free universal health care to Venezuelans, who sit on the world's largest proven oil reserves. President Nicolas Maduro's government insists it's complying. Yet of the country's 100 fully functioning public hospitals, nine in 10 have just 7 percent of the supplies they need, Natera said.

The other nearly 200 public hospitals that existed when Chavez took office were largely replaced by a system of walk-in clinics run by Cuban doctors that have won praise for delivering preventative care to the neediest but do not treat serious illnesses.

The woes are not restricted to the public system.

Venezuela's 400 private hospitals and clinics are overburdened and strapped for supplies, 95 percent of which must be imported, said Dr. Carlos Rosales, president of the association that represents them.

The private system has just 8,000 of the country's more than 50,000 hospital beds but treats 53 percent of the country's patients, including the 10 million public employees with health insurance. Rosales said insurers, many state-owned, are four to six months behind in payments and it is nearly impossible to meet payrolls and pay suppliers.

Worse, government price caps set in July for common procedures are impossible to meet, Rosales said. For example, dialysis treatment was set at 200 bolivars ($30 at the official exchange rate and less than $4 on the black market) for a procedure that costs 5,000 bolivars to administer.//

Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 6, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
Nixon bailed like the chickenshat crook that he was.

No president etc....

Have a good day, Ron.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 6, 2013 - 04:01pm PT
Interesting post, Larry. I expect future posters to ignore it, sad to say.

John
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 6, 2013 - 04:23pm PT
what is Chavez's problem with just selling enough on the world market to solve those problems?

anyone know?

He's dead?

Curt
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 6, 2013 - 05:39pm PT
Even Ralph Nader lambasted ObamaCare today. That says something.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Nov 6, 2013 - 06:57pm PT
Obama is a lying sack. Period.

Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 6, 2013 - 07:26pm PT
I don't know how true this is but Nader said the Canadian legislation totalled
13 pages while the ACA was 2000 with another 2000 worth of regulations.
And they wonder why they can't get it straight?
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 07:59pm PT
Norton wrote:
What is (was) Chavez's problem with just selling enough on the world market to solve those problems?

Maybe the problem isn't as simple as money.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Nov 6, 2013 - 08:08pm PT
and the Supreme court even admitted that they didn't read all 2,700 pages!
...comparing reading it to cruel and unusual punishment!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/scalia-affordable-care-act-cruel-and-unusual_n_1386195.html
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
I've heard that free breast and prostrate exams are available through TSA at all airports. Now other agencies are getting into the healthcare business.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131105/05401425129/cops-subject-man-to-rectal-searches-enemas-colonoscopy-futile-effort-to-find-drugs-they-swear-he-was-hiding.shtml
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Nov 6, 2013 - 08:30pm PT
jghedge, are you so lazy that you could only be bothered to read the headline? or is it a comprehension problem?
You are the "moran"...

From the SECOND paragraph of the article...

"What happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?" Scalia asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler during Wednesday's health care reform hearings.
Shack

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Nov 6, 2013 - 08:39pm PT
So it is a comprehension problem.
Good luck with that.
Not gonna waste my time explaining plural forms of personal pronouns.
Moron.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 6, 2013 - 08:45pm PT
So how come you guys are ignoring the fact that this country's greatest
champion of 'the little guy', Ralph Nader, thinks the ACA is a pile of crap
as it is written? Is he off his rocker, does he not get it? Come on, tell
Ralph he isn't for the little guy any more.
storer

Trad climber
Golden, Colorado
Nov 6, 2013 - 09:05pm PT
Look, I'm on Medicare and so should you be. Did you ever ask yourself why you aren't?

Why isn't your wrath directed to me who has Medicare? Give me one good reason why you don't have it?

You get hit by a rock some dummy above knocks off and then you will understand the picture, quickly enough.

Many of us more informed people wanted a single payer system, like Medicare, but we're struggling to even get this which is a big improvement over the unregulated, rip-off insurance market we had before even though it will still still make the insurance companies rich as before.

I look at this as a baby step to national healthcare, to bad we have to go this slow but the obstructionists (Republicans, Tea Party, anarchists, etc.) are a POA and it PO's me mightily.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Nov 6, 2013 - 09:24pm PT
Talked to my ex-insignifcant other and her monthly bill went down 75 dollars from what she paid before the ACA...She said the Cover California program wasn't that hard to navigate...? However , she said Blue Shilled keeps bumping their policy up 10% every year...So what's with all the whailing and gnashing of teeth...?
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 6, 2013 - 09:48pm PT
no more will this happen to people

As long as you can pay the premiums and deductibles, assuming you work in the private sector. If you are a public "servant", no worries; there is a magic cash resource; taxpayers.


Why is congress and the executive branch excluded and have their own health and retirement plans which we pay for? Pretty much every government employee has their health care and pension fully funded for life at nearly zero cost to them; the taxpayers foot the bill.

Let them eat cake seems to be the plan forward. The gooberment no longer looks to serve the population, but looks to force the population to serve them. Until the government sector applies the same rules to themselves as they mandate to the private sector, it is a cash grab and pure BS.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 09:49pm PT
Dave Kos wrote:
and the ACA is a huge compromise.

What was the ACA vote in the Senate and in the House?
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:04pm PT
Gubmit workers do not get their health care paid for life, and it's my experience that it was on par - if not a bit worse - than benefits I've received elsewhere. I do admit, it was far better than the 8 years or so of my life when I had no health insurance.

Government healthcare info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Health_Benefits_Program

Congressional member healthcare info:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

Congress not exempted:
http://www.rgj.com/article/20131001/NEWS1801/131001004/

As far as retirement plans - it operates like the private sector except that the gubmit workers can invest (i.e., put in their own money) in plans such as the H Plan, L Plan, etc. It's like blind investing!

Here is some info:
http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/

For more, go to the TSP site linked there. Unless I was being given different treatment than all other workers, the benefits I received were slightly below par with private sector benefits.

Just my experience.

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
What was the ACA vote in the Senate and in the House?

60-39 and 219-212.

Why?

Curt
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:14pm PT
Gubmit workers do not get their health care paid for life, and it's my experience that it was on par - if not a bit worse - than benefits I've received elsewhere. I do admit, it was far better than the 8 years or so of my life when I had no health insurance.

In Cali they do.
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:23pm PT
[quote]Because they work for an employer that provides health benefits. The fact that the employer is the gov't is irrelevant. ObamaCare benefits are for poor people, like Food Stamps are, not for people with good jobs, like gov't workers.
/quote]


no, it is not irrelevant. the difference is my employer needs to make a profit and is passing the cost of this BS to employees. the gooberment just raises taxes and sucks us dry rather than passing the cost to their employees. meanwhile I am also being required to fund "poor people" Do you really think all this money is magically produced?

Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:24pm PT
Ah - I'm speaking of federal gubmit workers. I should have been more specific. Thanks for that clarification.
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
Look, I'm not against a federal health care plan; I'm for it. I just think this is a cluster and is a veiled form of wealth redistribution which in the end will only benefit the government money grab and will have no true benefit to society.

I've busted my butt to make a living and be financially self sufficient. I was never able to spend 5 weeks in the alps or tramping around asia. Instead I worked my ass off and have saved all the money I can.

Now it is being taken away from me to fund a boatload of people that never looked at the big picture.

edit: What I'm saying is that there needs to be a level of personal responsibility. I have no problem with chipping in to help people out. But I don't see why the gooberment should have the ability to pick my pocket for idiots that have not taken responsibility for their actions.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 10:59pm PT
jghedge wrote:
It takes 2 to compromise, right?


Curt wrote
60-39 and 219-212.
Why?

jhgedge,
That's my point, there was no compromise.

Curt,
Because by definitions I know of, there was no compromise.

an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/compromise
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
jghedge wrote:
Other countries literally pay you to go to the doctor and dentist.



Other countries, with healthcare systems riding on the coat tails of a strong, successful and ethical free market system, literally pay you to go to the doctor and dentist.
Fixed it for ya...see one example of other countries here:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VENEZUELA_SICK_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-06-00-10-00
WBraun

climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:16pm PT
Hedge -- "Do you think congress and the executive branch should be on Food Stamps as well?"

Yes, they should all be fired and made to work digging ditches in lion cloths.

These arrogant fat asses need to be humbled.

They're irresponsible.

It's time for a REAL change .....
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:21pm PT
jghedge wrote:
It's called "democracy". You're free to move somewhere where there isn't any. Plenty of choices.

Back in the day, right wingers used to say "America, love it or leave it".
To paraphrase on old baseball player: Just like deja vu all over again.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:26pm PT
Digging ditches would suit the fatt asses right but making them wear lion cloths is cruel and unusual punishment...
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
Yes, they should all be fired and made to work digging ditches in lion cloths.

These arrogant fat asses need to be humbled.

They're irresponsible.

It's time for a REAL change .....

Werner, well stated. They are truly irresponsible and should be held accountable. Instead the dumb shee voters keep voting in the incumbents.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
jghedge wrote:
Yes of course - Venezuela - because citing any actual comparably developed democracy would disprove your point.

Thanks for making my point by doing that.

I'm not trying to make the point you think I am. I am not passing judgement on any healthcare systems in Canada or Europe because I know nothing about them. The point I was making is the underlying funding, whatever type of healthcare system there is. Another point I will make is that a successful capitalist society requires ethics.
You made a blanket statement about "other countries". I was just being persnickety with the sweeping generalization you made and reposted the link on Venezuela. It is a story worth pondering. You never know what lessons can be learned.
I do respect your faith and passion that the ACA will be successful. I don't share that faith, but I hope for the best.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:48pm PT
jghedge wrote:
Were they citing your opposition to democracy as a reason for leaving?

I've never been opposed to demcracy. I think everyone in this country is entitled to all the rights summed up in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CzteDucRHo
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 6, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
What I actually do have faith in is that the insurance companies won't be around long enough to find out. they won't be needed. The MediCare model will be made available to all.

Can you send me what you are smoking?
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 12:06am PT
He is back on the crack again


Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 12:12am PT
Norton wrote:
yes, this is democacy

LOL, yes democracy is messy and every group has a whole Bell Curve of humanity.
As one of my favorite philosophers once said: "Can't we all just get along"?
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 7, 2013 - 12:22am PT
hedge-do you pay your own bills or rely upon me to pay them?
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 7, 2013 - 12:31am PT
Agreed insurance is shared risk. But do those that don't pay get covered as my premiums and deductibles shoot through the roof? It is about personal responsibility.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 12:37am PT
Agreed insurance is shared risk. But do those that don't pay get covered as my premiums and deductibles shoot through the roof? It is about personal responsibility.

You're describing what we currently have--and what the ACA is attempting to fix.

Curt
johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 7, 2013 - 12:44am PT
Ok, I'll bow of this after his post. I had an insurance plan that the administration stated I could keep. That plan has been canceled and to renew my under the Affordable health plan, my premiums are up 44%. My deductibles are up around 200%.


Guangzhou

Trad climber
Asia, Indonesia, East Java
Nov 7, 2013 - 01:02am PT
Well, looks like this law has hit me below the belt too. As an expat, I recieve insurance from my employer. The insurance company is American and all of us on the coverage are Americans, but....

Looks like I either buy personal insurance, or I pay a penalty.

Thanks OBAMACARE

I am a U.S. citizen residing outside of the U.S. on a Global Medical Insurance Plan. Does the individual mandate apply to me?

U.S. citizens who live abroad for a calendar year (or at least 330 days within a 12 month period) are treated as having “minimum essential coverage” for the year (or period) and, therefore, are not required to purchase PPACA coverage. These are individuals who qualify for an exclusion from income under section 911 of the IRS Code. See the IRS foreign earned income exclusion test for further information on this exclusion. They need take no further action to comply with the individual mandate.

Please note that IMG’s Global Medical Insurance Plan does not meet the definition of “minimum essential coverage” under PPACA. GMI is not intended to provide U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. with health insurance. While your GMI plan for worldwide coverage will not be affected by PPACA, you should review the information below to see if you are exempt from the requirements of PPACA or not, and whether you will have to pay a tax penalty or not.

Under PPACA, all U.S. citizens, nationals and resident aliens will be required to purchase minimum essential coverage (PPACA compliant coverage), unless they are exempt. Exempt U.S. citizens include U.S. citizens who reside outside of the U.S. The exemption applies to:

A U.S. citizen who has a tax home (your main place of work or employment, or if you don’t have a main place of work or employment, your main residence) in a foreign country, and has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period that includes an entire taxable year; or is present in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full days in a twelve month period.

See details under the IRS foreign earned income exclusion test.

Even if a person was required to purchase minimum essential coverage and did not, she/he would only be required to pay a tax penalty for not purchasing PPACA coverage (if she/he files a U.S. tax return). In many cases, this tax is far less than the premiums that a person would pay for obtaining PPACA coverage.

What will my tax be if I am required to have PPACA coverage, but do not purchase it?

Tax Calculations:
Taxes begin in 2014 and rise in years following. In each year, the tax consists of the higher of a dollar amount or a percentage of household income. For a given household, the tax applies to each individual, up to a maximum of three. Following is the schedule of taxes:

2014: The higher of $95 per person (up to 3 people, or $285) OR 1.0% of taxable income.

2015: The higher of $325 per person (up to 3 people, or $975) OR 2.0% of taxable income.

2016: The higher of $695 per person (up to 3 people, or $2,085) OR 2.5% of taxable income.

After 2016: The same as 2016, but adjusted annually for cost-of-living increases.

I am an individual residing outside of my home country and covered under an employer group plan. Does PPACA apply to me?

On March 8, 2013, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury issued a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) announcing that, for expatriate plans, compliance with most PPACA provisions is being delayed until January 1, 2016. The relief from compliance applies for plan years 2014 and 2015 on plans that meet the following definition:

“Insured group health plans with plan years ending on or before December 31, 2015, in which enrollment is limited to individuals residing outside of their home country for at least six months of the plan year and any covered dependents.”
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:24am PT
jghedge wrote:
Yet you object to majority rule on the grounds that it doesn't offer enough compromise.

What would you suggest to allow more compromise and still retain majority rule?


You either don't state my position properly or don't understand definitions the same as I do.

Compromise: It is up to the individuals or groups involved in any issue to freely pursue compromise or not. If a majority refuses to compromise on major legislation and passes it on a pure party line vote, can that majority really be surprised when the opposition uses all means legal to block or overturn said legislation?
One point I'll make is that all major social legislation in this country was passed on a bi-partisan basis. That is why all of those programs are successfully accepted by very wide majorities. Still, the small minorities who disagree with those widely accepted programs are free to protest in any legal way possible.

Majority rule: I believe in majority rule, to the point that 51% vote to pee in the Wheaties of the other 49%. The old "Two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner". It seems that you don't know, remember, or conveniently forget, the origin of the Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I am not stating this is a Bill of Rights issue. My only point is that no compromise was accomplished before passage by simple majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_majority

Ain't democracy a mess? (you could call it a representative republic, but then the dirty R word is the root).
Seems you just can't always get what you want. (I should write a song about that).
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:07am PT
KEEP bellyaching about Obama and nothing is going to change..Try directing your anger where it belongs...The insurance companies and your republicans for not coming up with a plan to make health care affordable...
Charlie D.

Trad climber
Western Slope, Tahoe Sierra
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:23am PT
^^^The republicans did come up with a plan and it's now being implemented nationally. They were the conceptual architects of the ACA which first was implemented in Massachusetts.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:27am PT
ACA is a full on train wreck that ran into a school bus of kids at the RR crossing. Unfortunately a bunch of the kids on the bus now have no insurance because their policies have been canceled and now their working class parents could not afford an Obamacare policy.



ACA was a campaign strategy to elect a politician. Just another underfunded and poorly implemented government program. It will fail because the idealistic younger generations ( as well as the working class) will refuse or more likely be unable to pay massive premiums required to subsidize the huge and largely unhealthy boomer generation.



Single payer will not happen in our life time. The healthcare situation will go from bad to worse. Pray for a healthy life and a quick and untimely death as it is the only way anyone that is not "rich" will avoid the clusterf**k we have voted for.










johntp

Trad climber
socal
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:30am PT
And again, Obama doesn't control the insurance companies,

WTF? This is his plan; should he not be held accountable?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:39am PT
WTF? This is his plan; should he not be held accountable?

he should get in line behind the pack of treasonous war criminals that proceeded him.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:58am PT
Wade Icey wrote:
he should get in line behind the pack of treasonous war criminals that proceeded him.

Because this thread is about the Iraq War? Or because the buck stops somewhere far from the president or the party that passed the ACA legislation?
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:09am PT
Dave Kos wrote:
Compromise in the world of Larry Nelson

Dave,
I think I am on the same page as the Oxford dictionary. Maybe write to them to correct their definition.
an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/compromise


Where did the republicans agree or settle to what was passed? The way I read the definition of compromise is that both sides agree to a settlement. You must read it differently.
Cheers,
Larry

Dave,
I will also add that I would never sell a $200,000 house for $100,000. I might drop my price depending on market conditions or how desperate I am to sell. I am free to disagree with your price, just as you are free to disagree with mine. The deal, or compromise in your analogy, happens when both sides agree.
I will agree for you to buy my bridge, though you probably unfairly don't want to compromise.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:19am PT
Because this thread is about the Iraq War? Or because the buck stops somewhere far from the president or the party that passed the ACA legislation?

No, Because none of you folks calling for accountability made a sound when lies, treason, torture and the murder of innocents was the mode du jour. Where did the the buck stop then? Who has been held accountable?

Now, however flawed. there is plan afoot to improve the health care of millions and to drag the US forward-Obama must be held accountable.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:22am PT
I am looking forward to the new and slightly more affordable version 2.0........Hillarycare. She might have a chance of making it work lol
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:35am PT
Wade Icey wrote:
Obama must be held accountable

I think history will hold Bush and the congress that voted for the Iraq War accountable.
When it comes to the current president you seem to balk at him being accountable for the down side of ACA. Should we hold him accountable for his success's but "socialize" his mistakes? Wall St sure liked that deal.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:36am PT
Dave Kos wrote:
I've agreed, why can't you?

Dave,
If I don't agree, we have no deal, no compromise. But I will respectfully agree to disagree with your definition of compromise.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Why should we expect compromise? We have elected a bunch of self serving politicians/ attorneys ( pond scum) that have experience in getting elected and not much else other than being out of touch with reality and what happens in the real day to day world.
As a result, we should expect a plethora of laws and increased infringement of our personal freedoms that will be financed by the hard working middle class.



Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:56am PT
Dave Kos wrote:
You are right, we don't have compromise. Because you refuse to compromise.

Dave,
I can only assume you haven't dealt much in buying or selling a house.
To paraphrase:
"I offered you $100,000 for your $200,000 house. You refuse to compromise"
Yes, and I would be a fool to compromise on your terms.
Like I say, want to buy my bridge? I will agree to a price. What's not to like?

guyman

Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:23am PT
Why should we expect compromise? We have elected a bunch of self serving politicians/ attorneys ( pond scum) that have experience in getting elected and not much else other than being out of touch with reality and what happens in the real day to day world.
As a result, we should expect a plethora of laws and increased infringement of our personal freedoms that will be financed by the hard working middle class.

+11111

Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:25am PT
jghedge wrote:
"Because making up my own definitions is less embarrassing than admitting to being wrong."

I have been corrected on this thread and humbly acknowleged my mistakes.
I have linked the Oxford dictionary definition of the word compromise twice. I am seeking the truth.
I'm not interested in a partisan pissing match.

Intractable partisanship is what is wrong with the Imperial city of Washington DC, where at least 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in America surround it. Both parties are to blame. Both parties are corrupt.

Believe what you want to believe. Almost seems religious to me. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 01:21pm PT
Glad to see Obama is taking care of the ones that feed him


http://nypost.com/2013/11/07/rule-lets-unions-avoid-obamacare-tax/
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
No I am commending him for taking care of the ones that fill his coffers.

PS It is OK to engage is shady political behavior if it is for the common good lol

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 01:54pm PT
Unfortunately, this is how Republicans compromise


Curt



JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 7, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
It's how the Democrats compromised, too, in the Affordable [sic] Care Act. The Democrats compromised among themselves concerning things like a public option. The corporations that paid for the Obama election and that of the Democratic Congress didn't want a public option, and enough Democratic legislators were sufficiently concerned to oppose including one. There was no compromise made to gain Republican votes.

It's still how they "compromise." The ACA has problems. Have the Democrats made any concrete proposals to fix them, or even made an offer to do so? The only "fixes" have been the executive branch's enforcement abatement -- a concept frightening in its implications for separation of powers.

While I acknowledge -- and remain firmly opposed to -- the Tea Party's demand for inflexibility, they may end up looking like political geniuses yet if the ACA rollout continues in its disastrous ways and the Democrats take no responsibility for the problems. They already face a dilemma; if they take legislative action to fix problems, they open themselves up to the criticism that they, rather than the Republicans, insisted on keeping the government partially shut down solely to protect an Act they knew was deeply flawed.

How about we quit the partisan game playing, admit the problems, and just maybe do something about fixing them?

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 7, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
Can you name a single Republicans that even hinted that they would vote in favor of ACA if certain changes were made?

Yes. Olympia Snowe after the public option was off the table. I'm sure there would have been many others if the Democratic leadership made the slightest effort to enact legislation with bipartisan support, but I'll ask you the complementary question. What Democrat hinted that he or she was willing to consider changes to acquire Republican votes?

John
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
What Democrat hinted that he or she was willing to consider changes to acquire Republican votes?


Almost all of them.

They didn't just hint. They compromised right out of the gate.

That's why the ACA is modeled after the Republican/Romneycare plan and not single payer.

The Democrats made a HUGE compromise from the beginning.

I think you understand this John. You are abusing the false equivalence argument.

BINGO !!

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
The problem with Obamacare is that the government will now completely F'UP what was a well intentioned idea.

Implementation is going well....right?

I am so excited for this Obamacare.

I should expect reasonable care for free almost free if I don't work(subsidies). If I do work and make a very modest middle class income, I have to pay more than I pay in rent/mortgage to the government for insurance that really only covers me for catastrophic events because the massive deductible.

This is awesome !

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
The problem with Obamacare is that the government will now completely F'UP what was a well intentioned idea.

Implementation is going well....right?

I am so excited for this Obamacare.

I should expect reasonable care for free almost free if I don't work(subsidies). If I do work and make a very modest middle class income, I have to pay more than I pay in rent/mortgage to the government for insurance that really only covers me for catastrophic events because the massive deductible.

This is awesome !

I know. It's a horribly flawed idea, concocted by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney. We should scrap it immediately and follow the lead of every other industrialized country in the world, by putting a single-payer healthcare system in place.

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
Good luck with that.
Looking forward to the smooth roll out and great care for a reasonable price.





Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:26pm PT
Good luck with that.

Correct. Because of Republicans.

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:38pm PT
^^^ That is the problem with this whole Obamacare thing. Republicans, Democrats blah blah blah.

Obamacare is failing because of ( insert political party name)

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 7, 2013 - 06:53pm PT
Remember, Not a single Republican voted for the Unaffordable Heath Care Tax in either house and Dingy Harry, and Nancy had to "diem" it passed because they didn't have enough votes to pass it under regular order.


On another sour note,



http://capitolcityproject.com/delaware-spends-4-million-on-obamacare-enrollment-signs-up-four-people/
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:09pm PT
http://obamacaresignups.net/
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
I'm with neither party, so this response is not "partisan." I will merely float two data points first hand:

1) One of my company's partners used to purchase his own insurance. Low deductible and low copay, it was still cheap (barely over $100 per month) because of his age, health, and habits. That policy recently went away, and now he must purchase something on the "exchange" (or pay an ever increasing fine to get nothing). He's looked on the exchange, and even the "gold" plan is nothing CLOSE to as good as what he was buying on his own. And his cost for the privilege of very inferior insurance is (wait for it....): double the price per month.

2) My company completely pays for the health insurance of all of its employees. I mean 100% of the cost of our small group plan, and we buy great insurance through Anthem. Again, low deductible and low copay. Our small group rate is affordable, and we consider 100%-paid coverage one of the "thanks yous" we can give to our employees. Sometime in 2014 either Anthem is planning to drop these small group policies or increase the price by 40%-60%. So, we're in limbo, and either option takes us out of our previous game. Either way, health care is going to cost our employees SIGNIFICANTLY more! I mean a LOT more, because we simply will not be able to afford to 100% pay for this "new" coverage. So, like in (1), our employees are going to GET significantly less and pay significantly more.

Already my company pays ridiculous taxes, and this new "tax" hurts exactly whom? Well, the very employees that Ocare was promised to help. And the "keep your plan" bovine defecation is literally just that: Pure, steaming, loose, and runny. Oh, and very, very stinky as well.

Now, I know the response already: Well, Ocare was put in place to provide coverage for millions of uninsured Americans, because SOMETHING just MUST be done in a "humane" society.

So, let me ask a few questions about all this "humane" business....

1) Is it "humane" to allow people that obviously and absolutely CANNOT afford it to keep on breeding and breeding and breeding? I mean, if supposedly I have some responsibility (being "humane" and all) to pay for all the kids that are popped out (that the parents KNOW they can't afford), then along with that "responsibility" I get some rights! One of those rights that logically follows from this "responsibility" is: I get to choose who gets to have kids. Right? And, if not, please explain how I am forced to be in a situation of unlimited exposure to risk with exactly zero power to mitigate against or control that risk! How EXACTLY in principle is this any different from you putting a gun to my head and FORCING me to play 1/6 Russian Roulette, then 1/3, then 1/2, and so on.

2) Is it "humane" to intentionally screw over huge segments of society in order to benefit others? I mean, why is the fact that poor people can "only" go to the ER (for free) somehow so "inhumane," when by "fixing" that "problem," you are doubling (or more) the costs to the people that have been paying and paying ALL ALONG?

3) DO we REALLY want to become just another European socialist democracy?

ALL I know for SURE is that in my sphere Ocare is proving to be a DISASTER of literally EPIC proportions, and it will completely change our business model! And THAT was not supposed to be the result to SMALL businesses nor their employees.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:47pm PT
This is all about "thinning the herd".

60 Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.

Dead people can't collect medicare or social security.


There's nothing new about this.

Progressives have been trying to off the "unusefull" since their beginnings at the turn of the last century with Margret Sanger and the eugenics movement.

Just back then they weren't old, just the wrong color or class.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:47pm PT
If your competitor finds a way to cut costs, you do too, or he puts you out of business.

That is such a bad and irrelevant analogy, especially when cast in the context of political philosophy, that I'm speechless and simply won't respond to it.

The basic questions I asked remain, and Norton's question is, I think, really pressing!
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:03pm PT
This is all about "thinning the herd".

60 Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.

Dead people can't collect medicare or social security.


There's nothing new about this.

Progressives have been trying to off the "unusefull" since their beginnings at the turn of the last century with Margret Sanger and the eugenics movement.

Uh oh, he's onto us. We want to provide healthcare to poor people in order to kill them off.

Curt
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
Do we REALLY want to become just another European socialist democracy?

Oh f*#k no. Why would we want to emulate countries with the best healthcare, highest standards of living and the most satisfied populations?

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:16pm PT
Why would we want to emulate countries with the best healthcare, highest standards of living and the most satisfied populations?

If you can even ask the question, and ask it that way, then there's no "answer" for you that you are going to "get."

And even if I agreed with your socialistic views, is Ocare or anything like it really "the way" we're gonna get there?

Answer: Well, yes or no, depending upon whether or not you see Ocare as the necessary step to a single-payer system or just an epic blunder along the way.

But, I guess we DID have to pass it to see what it all meant. And what we see it all meant is that for a larger group of Americans that were slated to be benefited by the law, the law is a disaster. Even the O-man himself is apologizing for the rat's nest of unintended consequences. And we don't even know the half of it yet!
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:24pm PT
If you can even ask the question, and ask it that way, then there's no "answer" for you that you are going to "get."

And even if I agreed with your socialistic views, is Ocare or anything like it really "the way" we're gonna get there?

Your post asked if we wanted to become a "socialist democracy" but the USA already is one. The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc. Why conservatives get their panties in such a huge bunch over treating medical care the same way is beyond me.

Agreed that Obamacare is not the best solution, but there is absolutely no way we could have moved directly to a single-payer system.

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:30pm PT
Actually, Hitler was a Fascist not a Socialist. And not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacious, just like not all generalizations are hasty ones.

Our country was founded on a particular political philosophy, and it was fundamentally libertarian rather than communitarian. The "gimme!" sea change that has been taking place at an ever-increasing pace IS fueling a fundamental shift in political philosophy in this nation, and it's not "scare tactics" when essentially half of the people in this nation want NO part of this shift!

And when the proportion of communitarians in this nation reaches the majority enough to actually make the sorts of changes that Ocare represent, then, my friend, it is NOT "scare tactics" to say that the Founders would have called that "majority faction," denounced it, and called it grounds for revolution.

We are on opposite sides of the pressing question: WHAT sort of nation are we? I, at least, have the Founders on my side. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why your communitarianism/socialism is superior to what the Founders set up. And "taking from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor'" in ANY sense would have been roundly denounced by our Founders (and I can cite passages, if you wish).

So, prove that we NEED the sort of sea change you advocate; and prove that the likes of Ocare laws are approaches that are good ways to get us there.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

In political philosophical circles, your definition is non-standard. And even our Constitution was written to severely limit the powers of the FEDERAL government (you are seemingly conflating all sorts of layers of governments in this nation) to engage in even the sorts of "public works" projects you define as socialistic PRECISELY because our Founders (federalist AND anti-federalist) wanted NO part of a FEDERAL government with the power to tax AS wealth-redistribution. And this wealth-redistribution at the FEDERAL level just is "socialism" on a scale and by an entity that our Founders utterly rejected.
michelle0607

climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
Madbolter--- Amen.

I am mostly a lurker here, but I wanted to put some real-world numbers to a similar situation.

I am a mid-thirties single mom with a child with special education needs. I worked my butt off in college, ended up with a hefty six figure student loan bill, and eventually landed a great job (too high paying to get subsidies )

My current individual+1 plan through BC/BS will be not be renewed. It is $290 per month, ~$5,000 deductible and pays 80% of hospital/medical after that. It does not cover maternity (I don't have a uterus) or mental health (if needed is covered by my ex as part of a court judgement).

The cheapest plan I can get on Obamacare is $593 per month, $12,000 deductible and pays 60% hospital/medical after that. It also pays for maternity and mental health-- services I will never need to pay for.

In my situation, this increase in premium means that I can either
a) stop paying for my son's educational therapy (not covered by any insurance anywhere) and turn off the electric or
b) default on some of my student loans or
c) pay the fine and go uninsured.

I simply can't dream up $300 extra money every month, let alone save for the higher deductible.

The "Affordable" part is a joke.







madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:44pm PT
but did they even talk about, much less pass, their own version of healthcare?

You ask this question as if (from our current perspective) that SHOULD have been some top priority back in 00-06. But why should it have been?

Under a certain political model (namely, the one our Founders envisioned), the FEDS were never, ever supposed to inject themselves into our individual lives like is now commonplace. So, it makes sense that ADDING to federal invasiveness (like Ocare now CLEARLY does) would be the last thing the Repubs would have on their agenda.

It seems to me that you question itself begs the question.

Perhaps the fact that millions of Americans were uninsured was simply NO PROBLEM that our Founders had any intention that the FEDS would ever do anything about. (Again, happy to cite some passages, if desired; you know, been there and done that).

You envision a political philosophy sea change from how this country was designed. Fine, and you are almost at the needed number of people to help you accomplish it. Thus, more and more, you'll have the force of "the people" behind you.

But our Founders recognized a CLEAR moral distinction in a democracy between what you CAN do and what you have a moral right to do, because they held certain principles of individuality and liberty as "inalienable." When ANY majority violates those basic moral principles, it becomes a faction, and that minority is then not only right but duty-bound to revolt.

Asked: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" And answered: "Government CAN do this."

Tell my employees that what they are facing with Ocare is just "scare tactics" that they should brush off and just lock-step follow along into genuine socialism where the nanny state always knows best how to care for you.

No, what you'll see instead is tens and tens of millions of Americans that are starting to wake up to the FACT that there were very good reasons why our Founders didn't want the Feds engaged with individuals at this level!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
The cheapest plan I can get on Obamacare is $593 per month, $12,000 deductible and pays 60% hospital/medical after that. It also pays for maternity and mental health-- services I will never need to pay for.

Literally TENS of millions of Americans are waking up to facts just like yours. "Affordable" in Obamaspeak really means: "wealth" redistribution, as though the shrinking middle-class was really "wealthy" in the first place!

Look, seriously, businesses like mine are literally being TAXED out of existence! Here I was, literally trying to do not just the "good" thing for my employees... not just the "right" thing; I was trying to do the NOBLE thing.

But even THAT is just not good enough for this federal government! We just aren't PAYING ENOUGH yet!!!

I guess that Spain and Greece are just "scare tactics."
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:06pm PT
Curt writes:

"The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc."





Going by your definition, every country on the f*#king planet that has a road or a school is socialist.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
Both those programs have defined gov't engagement in private life for generations.

Yup, and both barely made it past Supreme Court review, just as Ocare barely made it. All have been slides into socialism, and BOTH parties are indeed socialistic, which is why I want no part of either of them.

The line I drew was between libertarianism and communitarianism, but you keep talking party politics, when BOTH parties have indeed been on the wrong side of the divide for generations.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:10pm PT
um,
the constitution was written to SEVERELY expand the power of the federal government

Right! Regarding a VERY narrow subset of powers that were clearly defined. But the "interstate commerce" clause has been writ larger and larger for generations, and that IS a slide into more and more socialism that our Founders NEVER intended. And this latest ruling that forcing people to buy a product that they don't even want is a "tax" is the most ridiculous and convoluted "logic" to come out of the Supreme Court in a long, long time!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
Had Obamacare been launched 90 days prior to the last election with all the current "glitches", Romney would in the White House as I type.

Word!

And what we're really starting to see now (finally) is that these "consequences" are not "glitches" but are fundamental implications of Ocare. Now even the DEMS want to delay implementation (wait, wasn't THAT what the REPUBS were fighting for during the shutdown?).

Glitches. Yeah, right.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:15pm PT
seriously, ever think of anything other than yourself?

Seriously, you are asking me this question?

As I said, MY company pays 100% of health-insurance costs for ALL of its employees. How many companies do that?

And that's money that I and my partners could instead be putting into our pockets!

And, if you'll read what I actually wrote about this, you'll see that MY concern is that my employees are about to get SCREWED by Ocare. I'm not moaning because I'm "selfish!" I'm PISSED because I'm not even being ALLOWED to treat my employees RIGHT anymore!

That's "selfish?" LOL
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:18pm PT
Will you accept SS and Medicare when you reach 65?

"Accept"...?

Are you serious?

I was FORCED to pay into it my whole life, and I will NEVER get back out of it what I've paid into it!

You BET I'll EXTRACT as much of what is MINE out of it as I possibly can.

My issue is that I was FORCED to buy into this lemon of a "retirement plan" in the first place!

What a joke! Are you people really serious?

This crap is outlandish enough that I'm tempted to think you're just trolling.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:23pm PT
So if everyone's insurance rates are going up, where is all this extra money going?

Well, the 50 million "poor" that just couldn't "afford" health insurance (but just kept on poppin' out more and more kids) "need" coverage.

And you can bet that the insurance companies are (even as we speak, literally) figuring out how to make a profit in this new "climate," and they WILL, and nothing about the law constrains their ability to make a profit (of whatever they please).

On and on....
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
Well, I've said my piece. I've gotta run.

Again, the "lurkers" are making up their minds which perspective makes sense and coheres with reality.

The next year is going to be interesting indeed!
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
What do people who don't want to work pay ???
Nada ...

Some f*#ked up sh#t

Why do I feel that some folks will suddenly be making /declaring less next year?

Well, just raise the rates(tax) on the working class. Honestly that is the only way the Norton/Hedge circle jerk will work?
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:20am PT
Giving the US Govt the right to have a monopoly in the health care arena is freighting.

Also, DEATH PANEL is going to be the new name of my hardcore garage band.

I have a feeling those two words will used more frequently.

Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 04:55am PT
Snowmassguy wrote:
DEATH PANEL is going to be the new name of my hardcore garage band.

You bastard, that was going to be the new name of my garage band.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 07:56am PT
As The Chief has noted above, the sorryfest season is beginning.


**
By Ron Fournier
November 7, 2013

I'm sorry, too, Mr. President.

I'm sorry you couldn't finesse a single Republican vote for health insurance reform in 2010.

I'm sorry Republicans decided to re-litigate the law rather than help implement it, offering no serious alternative of their own for the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.

I'm sorry you campaigned for reelection on the famous false promise: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

I'm sorry your aides debated whether to tell the full truth (that people could keep their insurance only if it hadn't changed and if it met your standards) and decided instead to institutionalize the lie.

I'm sorry that when Americans recognized the deception you tried to reinvent history: "What we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." No, no, no, no, no—that's not what you guys said.

I'm sorry you didn't trust Americans with the truth.

I'm sorry that the Democratic Party's decades-old chase toward universal health care is now at risk because your law—your legacy, sir—is off to such a miserable start. The online networks don't work and the people you need bought into the system, particularly young Americans, can't access the market and now may never trust it ... or you.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," you told NBC News. "We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this."

Then, work hard, Mr. President, and tell your administration to do the same. Tell them, please, to stop blaming Republicans, insurance companies, and the media—to stop making excuses and shading the truth. You must lead by example (the NBC interview was full of excuses) and create a system of universal health care that is worthy of your promise.

"Ultimately," you told NBC, "the buck stops with me." You're right, sir. Please don't make us sorry about that.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-m-sorry-too-mr-president-20131107


Maybe he can fix it with a few more speeches and campaign rallies. Perhaps releasing some sealed divorce records. These methods always worked before.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 08:15am PT
Cancelled insurance? Post it here:
http://mycancellation.com/
doughnutnational

Gym climber
its nice here in the spring
Nov 8, 2013 - 09:13am PT
I ask (again) are there people out there who had not seen constant increases in their health insurance costs prior to the ACA? I've had the same job for the last 12 years and my insurance costs have risen almost every year during that time.
michelle0607

climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 09:31am PT
doughnutnational,

Good question

I have seen plan increases 4 out of 5 years. On a percentage basis, the premiums have gone up 2%, 3%, 3%, 0% and 8% with no change in deductible or percentage paid after deductible.

I am probably healthier than most and significantly healthier than most in my "deep south" state.


Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 8, 2013 - 09:48am PT
Did your premiums ever double or triple on you?

That's happening right now to a bunch of people. They have every right to be pissed, especially since they were promised the exact opposite by Obama.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Nov 8, 2013 - 09:48am PT
Funny that Insurance costs have been increasing every year while most Americans wages remain stagnant...It's not really a free market system when healthy people end up paying as much as the people who don't take care of themselves..Again , it's the old too big to fail government bail-out for American corporations...get rid of the Insurance leeches and socialize medicine...
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:27am PT
Who says their insurance was "junk" ?

Apparently they liked it - liked it enough to pay for it every month.

That was the only qualifier Obama laid out; "if you like" your policy.

Obama didn't say one damn thing about "junk insurance", but did say some variation of "if you like it, you can keep it" dozens of times.
doughnutnational

Gym climber
its nice here in the spring
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:31am PT
In the past 6 years my share of my premiums has more than tripled. (My employers share is capped at $7000)
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:32am PT
Wyna speaks the truth on this subject. I witnessed my mother, mother in law and various acquaintances put on this for profit treadmill although their medical situations were hopeless. The average working stiff is going to take it in the shorts with obamacare and the middle class will suffer further shrinkage
Obamacare was never anout medical care, it is about consolidation and control while further enriching a narrow segment of the population that is cooperative with big government goals at the expense of the masses.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:37am PT
Does ACA discriminate against marriage?

Given that consensus is forming on both the right and the left that the marriage gap— in which the wealthy elite have stable marriages while the working class don’t—is a major cause of growing income inequality, now seems like exactly the wrong time to incentive the single life.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/08/is-obamacare-the-newest-threat-to-your-marriage/
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:38am PT
My cancelled insurance was not JUNK at all. It was a better policy than I will have in January.
Basically, it is the same policy with a much greater monthly premium, maternity coverage and deductibles that are 2-3X greater than my old policy. My old policy did not have MATERNITY coverage. I am not having any more children yet I get to pay for maternity....sweet.


My policy cost went up big time with now huge deductibles. I will now pay a fortune for catastrophic accident coverage.

My new policy is unaffordable. i make just enough to not qualify for subsidies so it appears the lower middle class gets to subsidize the poor. I will now pay more per month for insurance than I do for my home mortgage.

If times get tough, insurance will be the first expense to get dropped. Obamacare will fail because it is unaffordable for the working class.


Trust me, I am not alone in the predicament.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:47am PT
jghedge wrote
Then why'd McCauliffe, a staunch ACA supporter, just win the governorship of a southern conservative state, defeating a wingnut who swore to oppose it?

Are you trying to convince those of us on the fence? You'll have to look past party talking points to find the whole truth.
Here is a link with another perspective. Myself? I don't know anything about Virginia except that they call small hills mountains.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/07/in-wake-of-narrow-cuccinelli-loss-democrats-panic/

apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
"In the past 6 years my share of my premiums has more than tripled. (My employers share is capped at $7000)"

Imagine if health insurance wasn't coupled to employment, and people had to foot the entire cost?

The retarded coupling of health insurance & employment, and the ridiculous increases in healthcare costs would have been addressed years ago, and we'd be in the logical place we should be: a single payer system.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
jghedge wrote
How desperate and stupid you'd have to be to believe that, I can't imagine. The reality is the exact opposite - as it always is in Wingnut Fantasy World.

Mr Hedge,
You should Google who Walter Russell Mead is, before you begin your inevitable and persistent ad hominems. I assure you, he is far more respected in issues of social policy than you or I. He also voted for Obama.

This may explain much of your lack of civility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

PS: Try decaf.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 8, 2013 - 12:53pm PT
My cancelled insurance was not JUNK at all. It was a better policy than I will have in January.
Basically, it is the same policy with a much greater monthly premium, maternity coverage and deductibles that are 2-3X greater than my old policy. My old policy did not have MATERNITY coverage. I am not having any more children yet I get to pay for maternity....sweet.

My policy cost went up big time with now huge deductibles. I will now pay a fortune for catastrophic accident coverage.

My new policy is unaffordable. i make just enough to not qualify for subsidies so it appears the lower middle class gets to subsidize the poor. I will now pay more per month for insurance than I do for my home mortgage.

If times get tough, insurance will be the first expense to get dropped. Obamacare will fail because it is unaffordable for the working class.

Trust me, I am not alone in the predicament.

Perhaps your "predicament" is similar to Deborah Cavallaro's?


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debunked-20131030,0,6010994.story#axzz2k4rwHAqa

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:01pm PT


Perhaps your "predicament" is similar to Deborah Cavallaro's?
Nope, not even close. Haning started my own business a few years ago, I have become very familiar with the REALITY of insurance today. It was not great before Obamacare but is much worse today. Worse meaning....unaffordable for someone like me that has a family of 4 and is in good health.



Unfortunately, the REALITY that Obamacare is going to prove to be unaffordable to the folks that are expected to fund it.

Those that are self employed or employed by a small business are going to be impacted immediately.

Employers will shift more if not all the financial burden to its employees in the next couple years. Young folks will decide to remain uninsured instead of paying the huge premiums.

Middle class( and below) folks will not pay for insurance when faced with the dilemma of paying for rent or insurance. Obamacare is going to be dramatically underfunded.

The idea that health care is an intrinsic right is a good one but I just do not see this working out and time soon.

Some say .....Single payer. Great, then make it happen.

I don't see it happening in my life time but maybe? I see two classes of health care. One class for the rich who can basically pay cash for the services of the best and brightest doctors and a second system for the masses. Get in line, take a number and hopefully the 3rd tier med school grad can treat you in time before you die from your illness.


Hope I am wrong but the above senario is probable.

Hoser

climber
vancouver
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
Obama didn't say one damn thing about "junk insurance", but did say some variation of "if you like it, you can keep it" dozens of times.

Thats because he was talking to adults with a brain, who needs to say if you were getting f*#ked I will allow you to keep getting f*#ked

what the hell is a matter with you? You want an option to remain f*#ked?

I will now pay more per month for insurance than I do for my home mortgage.

Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards

Maybe, depends how fast you die.

My reality is my house will be paid off in a few years. Maybe then I can afford insurance.
As I will be older, I will likely need more medical care and can buy insurance then and pass the buck to the younger generation that can subsidize me.

Oh wait, they wont be buying the unaffordable insurance so who is going to subsidize my old sick ass lol



Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
If you're too stupid to shop around for better, cheaper coverage, that's your problem, not the governments.

I have/had GOOD insurance.

We are keeping the insurance because Obamacare excludes the hospital that is the nearest to our home.

I get to keep the same insurance but with dramatically increased deductibles and a significant increase in monthly payments.

I shopped around, cant find anything better unless we want a MASSIVE deductible ( $12k)


JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Your house probably costs less than a catastrophic health issue, why dont you vote in a government that will bring in a single payer system instead of trying to go backwards.

Now there's a classic free lunch.

John
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:20pm PT
OK. That does it! Every time I click on this thread, I get an ad for health insurance. This thread is obviously part of a vast conspiracy to rip us off one way or the other, so I'm done here.

John
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
I am curious why so many are annoyed that maternity is included in policies. I don't and won't ever need it either. But I will also never need prostate cancer care, or testicular cancer care, etc. Why no outrage about that?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
Short answer, crimpie, is that maternity generally depends on the actions of the insured and therefore is not a classic insurable risk. To my knowledge, no one voluntarily contracts ovarian or testicular cancer.

I realize this answer is politically incorrect, but it is economically and, heretofore legally, a distinction vital in insurance contracting.

John
Crimpergirl

Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:45pm PT
So JE - does that mean we shouldn't cover climbing accidents too as they are based on the actor's actions?
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:46pm PT
Crimpie won't need Viagra, either, but you or I could get it through our insurance coverage even if we don't really need it.

Not sayin'....jess sayin'...
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:47pm PT

"We are keeping the insurance because Obamacare excludes the hospital that is the nearest to our home."


Why does the hospital have to be close to your home? Paying more justifies not having to drive further? And isn't that a choice you're making, not the gov't?


So when we need ER services, I( or my children) want to spend an extra hour in the car bleeding out or be directed to the hospital closest to my house that will probably just charge me huge $$$$ because I am out of network.


So Hedge, did you sign up for Obamacare or do you have other insurance. Just curious?




apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
Teenagers who eat too much ice cream exacerbate their acne...yet insurance will cover their medications.

Smokers who smoke too much will likely have a heart attack, and their insurance will cover them anyway.

These actions...and so many others, including pregnancy...require acts of the part of the individual.

Why wouldn't a socially-promoting & basic human right of pregnancy not be expected to be part of basic healthcare coverage?

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Crimpie, it certainly means that we would not cover climbing, motorcycling, ultralight aircraft, etc., for the same rate we cover those who choose not to engage in those activities. In fact, most all life insurance policies require that you pay extra for a variety of choices, not only recreational, but, e.g., choosing to smoke. Europeans require that the rescued climber pay for the rescue, thus creating the market for rescue insurance.

In general, when we allow people to engage in costly activities and insure against the costs of those activities for free, we create what economists call a "moral hazard." This has nothing to do with morality in its conventional sense. Rather, it creates a subsidy for engaging in costly activity. It is similar to requiring all of us to subsidize flood insurance for those who choose to live in a flood plain.

As many have pointed out, what we call "health insurance" has an insurance component -- namely indemnity from unanticipated outcomes from which we are all at risk, regardless of our actions -- but it also includes what amounts to routine maintenance. Maternity involves a combination of both factors. In this day and age, most children represent a voluntary action by people who desire to have children. The "normal" cost of maternity is something everyone having children will pay. There's also, though,, the additional costs that result from complications. Those additional costs are a true insurable risk. The former are not.

Ironically, the opponents of the ACA often oppose legal abortion as well. If there were no legal abortion, unplanned pregnancy would then be a classic insurable risk, so maybe Dave Berry was right when he titled his book Children and Other Hazards of Sex.

Does that help?

John
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
and once again, Crimpie absolutely blasts it out of the park

I am curious why so many are annoyed that maternity is included in policies. I don't and won't ever need it either. But I will also never need prostate cancer care, or testicular cancer care, etc. Why no outrage about that?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
they're complaints about the extortionate cost of health care in this country,

When Medicare was enacted health care consumed 3% of the GNP; now it is 8% and rising rapidly.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
Seems that those that are not impacted by Obamacare LOOOOOOOVVVEEE IT

Don't worry. Your policy will change in the not too distant future and it will cost you more $$$

Just a matter of time.

Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:29pm PT
I'll ask it again: For those that claim everyone's rates are going to go up, where is all the money going?


I guess we will find out over time.

Seems like it is going to subsidize policies for those that cant afford a policy.

Problem is it is putting the financial burden of folks like me that make just enough to support my family but not enough to qualify for subsidies? As a contract employee, it might just be worth to take a few months off to qualify for subsidies and declare a lower income. More family time and others can pay for my subsidy lol



My rates are going up big time and appear to be locked for 1 year. Betting that they go up again next year. As a family we are going to need to make sacrifices next year to afford insurance. What happens the following year when we see another large rate increase and cant afford it without. Like I said in a previous post...I believe the choice between insurance and rent/mortgage payment is going to be a reality of prices still rise.


I see organizations that I do contract work for getting ready to pass the buck to their employees. Both through part time work as well as increased $$ burden being passed to the employee.

If you have a comfy policy through your employer, expect to pay more.







Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
My union dues are $920 a year. Some DAYS I make double that. IN A DAY.


It all makes sense now. He is an elitist.

JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:34pm PT
I'll ask it again: For those that claim everyone's rates are going to go up, where is all the money going?

For coverage many neither want nor need. Dave, there's really no good economic reason why we price catastrophic health coverage differently from our pricing of life insurance, or even car insurance. Even under California's somewhat irrational law, my choices still affect my rate because that rate factors in:

1. How much I drive;
2. My driving record;
3. The expense of repairing my car (for collision); and
4. How much coverage I want.

Once I pay off my car, I will no longer need or want collision insurance, and I should hot be required to pay for it. The "we're all one big group and we should share all our health care costs" model ignores both freedom of choice and reality. Why should I pay for health care costs incurred by someone who chooses to smoke, for example? (In California the answer is, in part, I don't because of the heavy tobacco taxes, but that's a different story).

The fact remains that a traditional insurable risk is one over which the insured has no control, not one arising from intentional acts. That's why, for example, it's illegal in most situations for insurance to cover punitive damages. Our health care coverage is not entirely insurance, and we need to recognize and account for the difference.

John
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
We should all be poor, ignorant and vote repub

You are batting 0 for 3 if you are referring to me.

You do know your Union Plan will get the axe sooner rather than later.

Have fun with that Hedgesnob
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 02:53pm PT
Hedge, you're right, I missed a digit. You should see my check book - kind of like the gubmint's.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
Once I pay off my car, I will no longer need or want collision insurance, and I should hot be required to pay for it. The "we're all one big group and we should share all our health care costs" model ignores both freedom of choice and reality. Why should I pay for health care costs incurred by someone who chooses to smoke, for example?

+1

This is why Obamacare will fail. It is not economically feasible for the middle class to finance all the mental health care that Hedge gets/ needs

So Hedge, I am sure your Kaiser plan will decrease in price with additional bene's on January 1?



JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:13pm PT
Dave, That's one of the reasons why I have argued for years that we need to separate health care expenses from employment. Failure to do so leads to irrational pricing and inefficient delivery of services.

John
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:15pm PT

yes, much like Social Security and Medicare have "failed"

do you ever, ever get tired of yourself?

No never tired of myself because I speak the truth unlike the propaganda that you and your buddy Hedge spew all day long.

I am really looking at getting some social security money back when I become eligible. Yeah right !
Social Security once did work, not anymore. It is failing miserably.



Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:24pm PT
More great news for Obamacare and the middle class.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165776/uninsured-americans-ignoring-health-exchange-sites.aspx
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 8, 2013 - 03:29pm PT
"we need to separate health care expenses from employment"

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 8, 2013 - 05:37pm PT
Don't worry. Your policy will change in the not too distant future and it will cost you more $$$

It's pretty much impossible to disagree with that, but insurance companies have always changed policies and increased prices every year. That isn't something caused by Obamacare. I should add that cost containment is not a major part of Obamacare, but is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

Curt
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 8, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 8, 2013 - 07:14pm PT
Winners don't need unions
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 8, 2013 - 07:42pm PT
Someone else screwed by Obamacare...

...oh, wait...nevermind.

Conservative groups are highlighting the case of an Arizona man with leukemia whose insurance plan was canceled because it didn’t comply with the Affordable Care Act. A news report quoted the man as saying he would need to pay $26,000 to keep the same doctor. It turns out, he was able to get a new plan, which has his doctor in its network, for a lower premium and a lower out-of-pocket maximum than his old plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/the-rest-of-the-story-on-arizona-anecdote/

Curt
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:05pm PT
Credit: Cragman
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:39pm PT
The Chief...Union thievery..? 1 guy working and 12 guys standing around watching..? I didn't know the Mammoth Airport workers were unionized...? Did you hurt your back carrying Rusty's golf clubs..?
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 8, 2013 - 11:46pm PT
Riley, aren't you overdue for the Friday night drunk thread?
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 9, 2013 - 12:14am PT
Yep. I turn down work for a living.

Then I go to the gym...then go climbing.
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 9, 2013 - 12:19am PT
You work a noble profession.....give it all you've got.
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 9, 2013 - 12:28am PT
You can't drink much with Pete.....he gets to it before you get a chance.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 9, 2013 - 08:13am PT
jghedge wrote:
Try reality

Kind of ironic coming from a man who makes his living in Hollywood.

Obama interview here:
That is, many have pointed out that his campaign website was really good, so why didn't that mean that he'd be good at setting up a health insurance website? The answer is that the government is bad because the government is hampered by... government!

http://althouse.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/obama-admits-government-is-far-less.html
doughnutnational

Gym climber
its nice here in the spring
Nov 9, 2013 - 08:57am PT
I think the passing of friday night has caused some of you to lose sight of the most important question that needs to be answered in this thread: Who drinks less cragman or riley?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Nov 9, 2013 - 09:28am PT
if our special forces were in the business of protecting americans from real terrorisms which actually affects their lives...

they would be abducting and insurance and banking company managers and executives; delivering them to blacksites were cia contractors would wall and waterboard them

Good Point.

And DAMN those film industry union members.. the producers are going broke! Making just 100M profit on a film is just pathetic these days. We need to cut the boom operators pay in half right now!!! They don't have the right to sit on thier ass at all.. they need to get to work.. grab a broom or something.. go scrub a toilet when not filming. We arn't paying you to sit on your ass while Brad Pitt gets his hair fixed! But get your ass back here fast and be ready to go if we need ya.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Nov 9, 2013 - 10:30am PT
Even if that is true .. Producer is making damn good money selling something for which he hired union workers. I'm guessing he is getting more than just a pile of sh#t out of those union workers.

I guess the Union could write the contract such that the union worker only gets paid based on time they are actually doing the work they were hired for. Course you might then have to pay $200/hour. Infact that would be about right based on my experience working for myself.

My rule of thumb is to bid for a target of about $100/hour. But I'm not in a seasonal or rare project based industry. If I were I'd have to bid/work with down season or dead months in mind too.

If the specialized job you need someone to do does not pay enough to live decently then you won't get anyone to do that job. Regardless if it's a job that only takes 1 hour a day to do 20 days a year. The specialized skilled worked must keep a roof over their head and eat the rest of the time you dont need their work.

If you make enough off their work in between their sitting on the shitter typing political drivel on a website (which clearly the producer is) then the amount of pay is justified.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Nov 9, 2013 - 10:43am PT
The ACA cut funding for unreimbursed care at critical access hospitals because those uninsured patients would be covered by Medicaid. Unfortunately, the supreme court decided that Republicans could choose to not cover those people and so now those hospitals are getting screwed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/health/cuts-in-hospital-subsidies-threaten-safety-net-care.html?hp&_r=0

Now, in a perverse twist, many of the poor people who rely on safety-net hospitals like Memorial will be doubly unlucky. A government subsidy, little known outside health policy circles but critical to the hospitals’ survival, is being sharply reduced under the new health law.

The subsidy, which for years has helped defray the cost of uncompensated and undercompensated care, was cut substantially on the assumption that the hospitals would replace much of the lost income with payments for patients newly covered by Medicaid or private insurance. But now the hospitals in states like Georgia will get neither the new Medicaid patients nor most of the old subsidies, which many say are crucial to the mission of care for the poor.

“We were so thrilled when the law passed, but it has backfired,” said Lindsay Caulfield, senior vice president for planning and marketing at Grady Health in Atlanta, the largest safety-net hospital in Georgia.

It is now facing the loss of nearly half of its roughly $100 million in annual subsidies known as disproportionate share hospital payments.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 9, 2013 - 10:54am PT
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 9, 2013 - 01:00pm PT


932,000 left the workforce last month.

Third worst month in history.

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 9, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
I should add that cost containment is not a major part of Obamacare

actually, the ACA is already bending the overall cost of healthcare

not downwards but slowing the the accelerating increase going on for decades now

Thanks. I do realize that. What I meant to point out is that we still need to address the fact that we collectively pay twice as much in the USA as people in other industrialized western democracies do for their healthcare.

Curt
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Good news has arrived!

The health care laws have boosted employment. Oregon hired 400 people to process handwritten applications.

Still don't have anyone signed up yet. http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/11/11/oregon-health-care-exchange-has-yet-to-enroll-a-single-person/

and there are the 140,000 people who had their choice of insurance they had purchased cancelled by gov. fiat with no alternative.....they're still screwed of course.


11/11/2013 newz:
"SALEM, Ore. (AP) — With a reputation as a pacesetter in health care, Oregon laid out bold plans for complying with the federal overhaul.

The state wouldn’t just create a health insurance exchange, a complicated undertaking in its own right. Oregon officials set out to build one of the biggest and best in the nation — a model that other states would want to copy.

But more than a month after Cover Oregon’s online enrollment was supposed to launch, reality is lagging far behind Gov. John Kitzhaber’s grand ideas. The online system still doesn’t work, and the exchange has yet to enroll a single person in health insurance."
but they only spent a bit more than $300,000,000 ($300 million, yes) to get the site up so you can't blame them for not spending to achieve their goals.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 12, 2013 - 06:41am PT
Short blog post by the head of Harvard's economic dept.

Monday, November 11, 2013
Is community rating fair?
A large part of the motivation of the Affordable Care Act is to provide insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. Under the law, insurance is offered to everyone at a price based on overall community risk, not the risk estimated by the insurance company based on a person's particular characteristics. That has been deemed "fair" by advocates of the law.

I wonder whether advocates of this view are concerned with other insurance markets. Teenage drivers pay a lot more for auto insurance. The old pay a lot more for life insurance. Life insurance companies require health screening before granting a policy. Is this a problem, or the natural and desirable functioning of markets?

In the law, having children has been deemed a pre-existing condition, although it is not quite described as such. Everyone is now expected to buy insurance to pay for pregnancy and maternity care, even those who never intend to have children. The goal is to spread the risk of childbirth among the larger community.

But having children is more a choice than a random act of nature. People who drive a new Porsche pay more for car insurance than those who drive an old Chevy. We consider that fair because which car you drive is a choice. Why isn't having children viewed in the same way?

I don't know the answer to these questions. But it does seem that fairness in health insurance pricing is being viewed very differently than fairness in pricing other types of insurance. I wonder why.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com.br/2013/11/is-community-rating-fair.html

Those are some very interesting questions. Does anyone have any answers posed in the above blog post?
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 12, 2013 - 08:34am PT
"and what exactly was the healthcare plan of the party you voted for?"



This is the Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" mentality.

Passing a law that TRIES to solve one problem, while inflicting pain, grief and MORE problems on millions of others is off the chart pathetic.

You passed a law that essentially requires everyone to jump off a bridge....and PAY for the privildege....and you want "our party" to come up with one that makes better sense than that....

You all just jump. See where that gets ya.

Morons.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Nov 12, 2013 - 09:35am PT
Couchmaster posted
and there are the 140,000 people who had their choice of insurance they had purchased cancelled by gov. fiat with no alternative.....they're still screwed of course.

Um...no they aren't? They just haven't been able to sign up through the exchange yet.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 12, 2013 - 10:11am PT


Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Nov 12, 2013 - 10:17am PT
Pretty funny the mockery piece there has a laughable typo.

Some f*#king moron must have written it.

DMT
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Nov 12, 2013 - 10:24am PT
"Passing a law that TRIES to solve one problem, while inflicting pain, grief and MORE problems on millions of others is off the chart pathetic."


Ergo, not passing a law...or creating any kind of legislation to try and solve the #1 economic dilemma for US citizens...but instead starting wars that cost thousands of lives and cost trillion$....

that must be really pathetic.


Credit: apogee
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 12, 2013 - 10:30am PT
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 13, 2013 - 02:49am PT
Another point which bothers me greatly. If the gov't screwed up the website this badly, how will they handle the actual health care and/or insurance issues?

the gov't will not be handling the actual health care or insurance (other than medicaid)

Those systems have been set up and running for a number of decades, and utilize the latest in computers and software. Everything is already vetted and used.

Be reassured on this point.
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:38am PT
Larry,

The Harvard professor does not ask an interesting question. Posting the failings of 3rd world country's healthcare system (Venezuela) has no relevancy either.

Your example of Venezuela a few pages back is especially ironic given that you won't recognize the overwhelming success of the systems in countries like France, Germany, Japan, Norway, etc., etc. Are those systems without fault? Of course not, but the healthcare systems in those countries are far superior to what the US has to offer.

The real question the Harvard professor should be asking, a question he and most others (economists and journalists alike, whatever their political leanings) refuse to touch: why does healthcare in the US cost 2 to 3 times per capita than in countries like France, Germany, or even Japan?

That is a much more relevant question, and a better economic question, than any the Harvard professor asks (or any questions you've asked throughout this thread).

As most on the left in here have clearly stated, the ACA is a poor consolation prize to true healthcare reform and a single payer system, but it is a first step in the right direction.

Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 05:20am PT
Degaine wrote:

why does healthcare in the US cost 2 to 3 times per capita than in countries like France, Germany, or even Japan?

the ACA is a poor consolation prize to true healthcare reform and a single payer system, but it is a first step in the right direction.

Your question is excellent and I am only on this non-climbing forum thread to view the opinions of a general group that I respect. I don't have the answers, but I do throw out skeptical perspectives that I think are healthy in seeking the truth. I do know that ACA has negatively affected too many of my personal friends and acquaintances.

On the second statement, if the country wants single payer, then why not just put it up for vote? Maybe single payer is the way to go, maybe not. Why do you think single payer has to sneak in trojan horse style?

The best part of ACA is that it has exposed even more politicians in DC as mendacious meddlers. Too many choose not to see that in their own side and blindly defend or attack on a partisan basis.
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 06:30am PT
Larry wrote:
Your question is excellent and I am only on this non-climbing forum thread to view the opinions of a general group that I respect. I don't have the answers, but I do throw out skeptical perspectives that I think are healthy in seeking the truth.


Hi Larry, thanks for your reply. I have no problem with skeptical, but the perspectives you throw out - yours or those of individuals like the Harvard professor - are woefully ignorant and uniformed. They are not skepticism but foregone conclusions based on dogma that are desperately searching for some form of confirmation that they're right.

If you're truly interested in understanding then stop with the Republican/right wing talking points bullsh#t.

Larry wrote:
I do know that ACA has negatively affected too many of my personal friends and acquaintances.

And I bet that I know just as many people that the ACA has helped. Does my anecdotal evidence get to cancel out your anecdotal evidence, or will you just dismiss it?


Larry wrote:
On the second statement, if the country wants single payer, then why not just put it up for vote? Maybe single payer is the way to go, maybe not. Why do you think single payer has to sneak in trojan horse style?

In retrospect, given that almost no Republicans voted for the ACA, the Democrats might as well have voted for single payer. They should have also framed single payer as "Medicare for all". Medicare works, everybody nows what it is, it would have certainly received broad public support.

That written, given the 2008 Democrat primaries, I don't think that Obama is actually interested in a single payer system. Hillary was, but even before winning the nomination, Obama's plan was weak sauce when compared to Hillary's plan. Those of us writing that the ACA is a step in the right direction towards single payer have never stated (or at least I haven't) that this was Obama's intention. I honestly don't think it ever was. He may have hoped to at least include a public option in his plan, but even that he took off the table before the Republicans ever asked.

If you're actually interested in understanding healthcare and trying to figure out what works, then pull your head out of your rear and stop using right wing talking points to try to discredit Obama and the ACA, and actually look in to the data (economic, health, etc.) of the many universal healthcare coverage systems out there. Then look at the US system until know. If you keep an open mind you'll be unpleasantly surprised at how bad the American public is being and has been bilked (or hoodwinked, or taken for a ride, etc.) for decades by insurance companies and healthcare providers.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Nov 13, 2013 - 07:45am PT
Imagine how advanced American society would be if the voting public were more educated and not misinformed...? Too many Americans take the bait and go along with the special interest propoganda campaigns and vote against their best interest...
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 09:03am PT
Degaine wrote:
perspectives you throw out - yours or those of individuals like the Harvard professor - are woefully ignorant and uniformed.

Well, I plead ignorance, but that esteemed Harvard professor knows more about how incentives work in economics than most. He also posed the "perspectives" as questions to ponder, not statements of fact.


Economics, or any social policy (including ACA or single payer), is not hard science. No counterfactuals can be disproven. It is good to be cautioulsy skeptical of anyone who is cocksure of future success's in any new social policy. In fact the more dogmatic they are, the more skeptical we should be of their assertions. The Dunning-Krufer effect explains a portion of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


To inject some much needed humor, I offer this quote:
Former British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury is said to have remarked to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, "Change, change, why do we need more change? Aren't things bad enough already?"

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:50am PT
I despise Obamacare on literally countless levels. But I won't belabor that point, having said my piece on that up-thread.

Conversely, I would be 100% in favor of a single-payer system... provided that the funding for it came entirely in the form of new taxes... and those taxes should be levied at the cash register modeled upon something like a "vice tax."

For example, cigarettes, alcohol, red meat, ice cream, whole milk and cream, full-fat anything, etc., etc., all should have taxes added to the base purchase price relative to the known health-risks these things represent.

After all, if we're all going to be literally in the same health-care boat, then those people "weighting" the boat toward tipping it over are the ones that should most pay. And so, on a taxation system like this, well, if you want to pop out half-a-dozen kids and then turn them into fat little rolly-pollies, no problem. But YOU get to pay the taxes on all the soda, potato chips, ice cream, stacks of red meat, and so forth that I see such families checking out with in the supermarket lines. And no food-stamp program should pay the TAX part of such purchases. Base price only.

You cannot (in harmony with the ideals that make America different from European socialist democracies) have a single-payer system without ensuring that those who most "weight" the boat also are forced to assume personal responsibility (read: pay the price) for their lifestyle choices.

This present "wealth-redistribution" approach, whereby I am forced to buy a "product" that I don't want and at price/value ratios that has been jacked by government intrusion is entirely the wrong approach.

I am totally serious! You would find me completely on board with a single-payer system IF the revenue to fund it came directly from lifestyle choices. And the beauty of this approach is that it would indirectly motivate healthier lifestyle choices....

Emphasis on CHOICES in the land of the FREE and the home of the brave.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 13, 2013 - 11:51am PT
In retrospect, given that almost no Republicans voted for the ACA, the Democrats might as well have voted for single payer. They should have also framed single payer as "Medicare for all". Medicare works, everybody nows what it is, it would have certainly received broad public support.

That would have been impossible. In fact, to get the necessary votes in the Senate, the public option that existed in the ACA had to be deleted.

Curt
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
What does it tell you, Curt, when single-payer can't even get the undivided support of Democrats in Congress?

Obamacare passed with zero Republican votes.
Srbphoto

climber
Kennewick wa
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
For example, cigarettes, alcohol, red meat, ice cream, whole milk and cream, full-fat anything, etc., etc., all should have taxes added to the base purchase price relative to the known health-risks these things represent.

What happens when your ox gets gored?

For example, exercising. A lot of people have to go the Dr because of exercise.

Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
There are too many rolling and coming catastrophes caused by ObamaCare to keep track of. Just wait until the employer market is hit late next year. But within a few weeks, a humanitarian crisis is about to hit millions who could find themselves without health insurance. Millions who had their insurance policies cancelled are now unable to re-insure themselves on the broken ObamaCare websites. In liberal Massachusetts alone, only 1% of those cancellations have re-enrolled.
The Boston Herald reports that ObamaCare and the president's broken promise have already cost 150,000 Bay Staters their health insurance plans. But of those 150,0000, only 549 are in the Massachusetts Health Connector to be re-enrolled on time. Even that small number are not officially enrolled.
Overall, only 47,781 total accounts have been created and a paltry 16,282 applications have been completed.
What you likely have here is a toxic mix of people who either can't access the state site due to the technical problems, or those who have decided not to re-enroll. There is still 32 days to sign up in time, but it is obvious many are in no hurry.
Most of the people in the White House, including the president, have never had any real experience outside of government or academia, so they probably didn’t know that betrayal and frustration combined with rate shock is no way to attract customers.
For those who are already ill or might get ill early next year, this is no laughing matter. How many of the millions who had their policies cancelled have scheduled surgery or chemotherapy in early January. And how many of those, through no fault of their own, won't be covered because they can't access the ObamaCare site or afford the ObamaCare-approved plan?
On top of that, if a large portion of the millions who had their insurance cancelled simply refuse to re-enroll, you can bet that those refusing will be the young and healthy needed to keep ObamaCare financially viable. The result of an insurance pool filled with the sick and elderly would be skyrocketing premiums; which means more healthy people drop out, which mean prices go even higher.
That is called the death spiral.
It is becoming more and more likely that by this time next year, ObamaCare could result in an increase in the number of Americans who are uninsured.


We are Fu**ed
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
... IF the revenue to fund it came directly from lifestyle choices.

I'm all in favor of everybody paying to some extent just for "normal" purchases. We all engage in "lifestyle choices" that affect our need for health-care. NP!

I'm just emphasizing a "vice tax" to ensure that the subset of purchases that are known to be health-endangering should be taxed more heavily.

Really, the sole principle I care about in funding priorities is that people should be responsible (pay the price) for their lifestyle choices. So, yeah, single-payer system WITH funding tied to lifestyle choices: there are all sorts of models by which that can be made to work in harmony with American founding principles.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:44pm PT
and what was/is the Republican healthcare plan?

I guess we will find out as this is clearly a MASSIVE failure.

Once again, we see partisan politics working to the detriment of the American people.

Democrat, Republican blah blah blah




Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
^^^^Snowmassguy TOTALLY nails it!!!!!!
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
What does it tell you, Curt, when single-payer can't even get the undivided support of Democrats in Congress?

It tells me that Joe Lieberman is beholden to the insurance industry in Hartford.

Curt
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 13, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
Whatever happened to the purpose of government being the securing of our liberty?

Now, its "everyone's ox SHOULD get gored".

Time has long passed to start scaling back the power of the government.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
Norton, in all fairness, as I recall the days when the bill was being formulated and subsequently passed, it was done in closed-door sessions wherein the GOP was specifically excluded. Over and over, I heard that info reported directly from on the scene interviews. I don't believe their input was wanted or permitted. Now those were more "naive" times with a less experienced president (than now is the case) wherein I believe he felt that "might ruled" i.e. "might makes right." As a result of what transpired subsequently, he may have mellowed somewhat and come to a greater realization that there is a need for both parties to work together. The Dems were pretty heady in those days with the notion that they were in charge and "others need not apply" so to speak.

Working together sounds great until your opposition won't even support their own ideas. It's been said before, but let's be really clear about this: Obama assumed that the ACA would get some Republican support because it was based on their own plan--first envisioned by the very conservative Heritage Foundation and first enacted on a statewide basis by a Republican governor.

Curt
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:04pm PT
the millions who had their policies cancelled


anybody have personal experience with this? Vs. 'millions' of anecdotal talking points?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
anybody have personal experience with this? Vs. 'millions' of anecdotal talking points?

As I posted up-thread. Yes.

It's ironic that now even the Dems are starting to realize that this mess wasn't ready for prime time and are advocating the exact same delay in roll-out as the Rebumblicans pressed for in the shut-down.

Republicrats. Dembumblicans. Same thing. Same joke.

Except that tens of millions are not laughing.

Shiloh, you and I could in a couple of days hammer out a better plan than ANYTHING Congress has dreamed up. And it would be a fair and principled compromise that would appeal to the VAST majority of Americans (rather than this present 50.5/49.5 split we presently see). I like how you think and appreciate your refinements to the single-payer idea.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
even Medicare is a 12 month policy, for Christ's sakes

So, let me be sure I'm understanding what you're floating....

The widespread cancellations of small-group and personal plans, followed by NO comparable plans being made available at ANY cost, is comparable to the annual "cancellation" of Medicare?

Am I reading you right? Is this REALLY your comparison?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
But now when someone gets a particular policy canceled and replaced by another one that offers more coverage and better value, I'm supposed conclude that our president is Satan himself.

Tens of millions are finding that they can NOT get their existing policy "replaced by another one that offers more coverage and better value." But, I guess that this fact is just "anecdotes" that are really no "evidence" of a problem at all.

Perhaps you'll take as "evidence" that the President himself is embattled and apologizing for this FACT, because the Dems are running scared of serious backlash at this point.

It is now widely known and demonstrable FACT that what you are saying is simply false. Rather than to pretend that tens of millions are not being screwed by this debacle, you could legitimately continue discussion by at least having the intellectual honesty to acknowledge facts as facts.

You COULD legitimately argue that tens of millions were getting screwed prior to Obamacare, and I would instantly agree. You COULD argue that the President could hardly have been expected to foresee all the side-effects that would emerge from this law, and I would instantly agree (after all, they had to "pass it to know what it really says"). I could agree on all sorts of points.

But we would have to first agree to agree on the FACTS. You get nowhere by denying the facts. And it is FACT that tens of millions are having their policies CANCELED with NO comparable-valued policies available anywhere.

Not "more coverage." Not "better value." Nope! Simply not the case, and I've seen it first-hand, as I posted up-thread. And when the President himself is apologizing for the very FACT that you now deny, well, that indicates that you are not taking the facts very seriously.
Larry Nelson

Social climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:48pm PT
J.Shiloh and madbolter1 are making some excellent points.

Single payer may be a way to go, but funding it is where the rubber meets the road.
I like vice tax ideas, but everyone will have to have some minimal skin in the game.
I know there are many advocates of Canadian, French and other healthcare systems and I have heard many good things about them. There are also the anecdotal stories of someone coming to America from those countries to have procedures done. Clearly no one system is perfect.

I may be wrong, but I have also read that in Europe they use VAT (consumption tax) to fund their programs. Without researching it, does anyone know if that is true?
VAT's are somewhat regressive tax systems that hit the poor the hardest.
(Inflation is the most insidious regressive "tax"...watch out for that soon).


As far as our current partisan stalemate in the corrupt Imperial city of DC, someone once wrote:
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
it is FACT that tens of millions are having their policies CANCELED with NO comparable-valued policies available anywhere.

source?
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Nov 13, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
"A group of Occupy Wall Street activists has bought almost $15m of Americans' personal debt over the last year as part of the Rolling Jubilee project to help people pay off their outstanding credit.

Rolling Jubilee, set up by Occupy's Strike Debt group following the street protests that swept the world in 2011, launched on 15 November 2012. The group purchases personal debt cheaply from banks before "abolishing" it, freeing individuals from their bills.

By purchasing the debt at knockdown prices the group has managed to free $14,734,569.87 of personal debt, mainly medical debt, spending only $400,000.

"We thought that the ratio would be about 20 to 1," said Andrew Ross, a member of Strike Debt and professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University. He said the team initially envisaged raising $50,000, which would have enabled it to buy $1m in debt.

"In fact we've been able to buy debt a lot more cheaply than that."

The group is able to buy debt so cheaply due to the nature of the "secondary debt market". If individuals consistently fail to pay bills from credit cards, loans, or medical insurance the bank or lender that issued the funds will eventually cut its losses by selling that debt to a third party. These sales occur for a fraction of the debt’s true values – typically for five cents on the dollar – and debt-buying companies then attempt to recoup the debt from the individual debtor and thus make a profit."

....

""Our purpose in doing this, aside from helping some people along the way – there's certainly many, many people who are very thankful that their debts are abolished – our primary purpose was to spread information about the workings of this secondary debt market."

The group has focussed on buying medical debt, and has acquired the $14.7m in three separate purchases, most recently purchasing the value of $13.5m on medical debt owed by 2,693 people across 45 states and Puerto Rico, Rolling Jubilee said in a press release.

“No one should have to go into debt or bankruptcy because they get sick,” said Laura Hanna, an organiser with the group. Hanna said 62% of all personal bankruptcies have medical debt as a contributing factor."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/12/occupy-wall-street-activists-15m-personal-debt
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 13, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
I may be wrong, but I have also read that in Europe they use VAT (consumption tax) to fund their programs. Without researching it, does anyone know if that is true?

In England the National Health Service is primarily funded through an income-type tax--not sure about other countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance

Curt

Srbphoto

climber
Kennewick wa
Nov 13, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
In Canada, they originally taxed beer but it brought in too much money so I believe they changed it to an income tax.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 13, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
Even if the number were thirty million (and you've provided no evidence that it is), that's still less than 10% of the US population.

What percent of the population had NO insurance before ACA?

Now you're making a totally different argument from your earlier ones. This one is just Norton's et al, and it is back to the side of this discussion that I said I wouldn't debate anymore. I've said my piece on this, as it is really about the difference between political philosophies. I am libertarian and believe in people's freedom to choose AND to pay their own price for their choices. Obamacare is at the opposite end of the spectrum of solutions from the MANY other possibilities that would be based upon CHOICE, as Shiloh and I have been noting.

I'm not going to debate you about the obvious facts. That's a fool's errand. And I'm not going to debate political philosophy any more. On this thread, it's a waste of my time.

ALL I will say at this point is that your argument amounts to saying: "MANY were getting screwed before, and we don't even KNOW how many people (but it's a large enough number that even the President is back-peddling, and the Dems are now sounding like the Rebumblicans of a month ago) are getting screwed by the current approach. So, somebody is going to get screwed no matter what we do or don't do. Thus, it's FAR better to intentionally and ACTIVELY screw people by DOING something than it is to unintentionally screw people by doing nothing."

But there are FAR better alternatives than DOING Obamacare or doing nothing. That is ALL I intend to argue going forward.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 13, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
House Democrats delivered a fix-it-or-else ultimatum Wednesday to President Obama, giving his administration until Friday to find an affordable solution for the millions of Americans losing their health plans under ObamaCare -- or risk some Democrats backing a Republican solution.

The ultimatum from President Obama's own party is another sign of the unrest within the Democratic caucus about the cancellation notices. The end-of-the-week deadline is significant, because House Republicans are planning to call a vote Friday on a bill that would extend current policies for another year.

It's unclear whether Democrats would go so far as to support that bill if the administration does not offer a Plan B.


Yep Norton, implementation is smoooooooth
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:03pm PT
Larry Neslon wrote:
Well, I plead ignorance, but that esteemed Harvard professor knows more about how incentives work in economics than most. He also posed the "perspectives" as questions to ponder, not statements of fact.


Economics, or any social policy (including ACA or single payer), is not hard science. No counterfactuals can be disproven. It is good to be cautioulsy skeptical of anyone who is cocksure of future success's in any new social policy. In fact the more dogmatic they are, the more skeptical we should be of their assertions. The Dunning-Krufer effect explains a portion of that.


Hi Larry,

You’re the one who seems cocksure in that you are asking the right questions and that you are appropriately skeptical.

I’m not cocksure, but I have studied the subject extensively and in a professional capacity. I have no doubt regarding the Harvard professor’s knowledge and expertise in economics, and although the questions he asks might seem pertinent to you, they are off-topic with regard to healthcare and healthcare economics.

To start, the relationship between stakeholders in healthcare (patient, provider, insurance) is not the same as with auto insurance or life insurance. The incentive game is not the same.

I highly recommend that you read the Time article, it’ll be a good start for you. Reading WHO documents that provide overviews of most systems will also help to inform you on the topic.
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:04pm PT
"I'm not going to debate you about the obvious facts. That's a fool's errand. And I'm not going to debate political philosophy any more. On this thread, it's a waste of my time."


Madbolter1 nails it.....too many in this crowd are willing to go down with Obama's ship, even when plain facts are causing Democrat leaders to run away from the excrement that is Obamacare.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:11pm PT
Madbolter1 nails it.....too many in this crowd are willing to go down with Obama's ship, even when plain facts are causing Democrat leaders to run away from the excrement that is Obamacare.

Republicans side with Ted Cruz, shut down the government over Obamacare, and then you accuse anyone else of "going down with the ship?" Hysterical.

Curt
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:25pm PT
Larry wrote:
I know there are many advocates of Canadian, French and other healthcare systems and I have heard many good things about them. There are also the anecdotal stories of someone coming to America from those countries to have procedures done. Clearly no one system is perfect.

Anecdotes are just that, anecdotes. We're talking about judging a system in its entirety on such things as:
*Access to care
*Outcomes and the overall health of the population
*Cost of care

As I asked earlier, do my anecdotes get to cancel out yours?
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
An entire healthcare system cannot be funded by the "vice tax" that Madbolter brings up, and since Larry wrote the following:
I may be wrong, but I have also read that in Europe they use VAT (consumption tax) to fund their programs. Without researching it, does anyone know if that is true?

I'll write a quick reply.

Let's use the country with the number 1 healthcare system on the planet, France:

a) Everyone pays into the system=> Employees and employers as a percentage of an employee's salary. It can't be any other way. Everyone is in the risk pool and everyone shares in the cost.

b) However, in the spirit of Madbolter's "vice tax" certain products are taxed more heavily than others and this tax goes directly to the healthcare system. This is the case for cigarettes. There is a pretty direct correlation between smoking and lung cancer, it's easy to calculate the cost of lung cancer to the system, and so the VAT on cigarettes was raised to pay for this cost.

c)For activities like climbing, skiing, etc., belonging to an alpine club or a ski club one pays between 20 € to 30 € per year for insurance to cover those activities.

d) The system only covers dental and eyes for emergencies. Otherwise regular dental work, glasses, contacts, etc. are paid either out of pocket or via supplemental health insurance, which is private.

Larry, I'll let you do the rest of the research on your own, you've LEB'd me enough for one day.
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
Ron Anderson wrote:
I dont believe a president would get up on natl tv to APOLOGIZE over anecdotal evidence.

Ron, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. PM me if you want the contact info for a couple of tutors I know.
Degaine

climber
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:37pm PT
Sketch wrote:
There's a bunch of posters defending Obama tooth and nail. They seem like mindless zealots.

A bunch, that synonymous to a lot. For this type of thread me a lot = 10 or more. Could you cite the names within the hoard of mindless zealots of which you speak?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
Calling a liar on his lies is not "attacking".
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 13, 2013 - 03:58pm PT
Dave Kos...I simply don't talk to you because....you're you.
Cragman

Trad climber
June Lake, California....via the Damascus Road
Nov 13, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
My politics are of no bearing on this particular thread.....you're simply trying to take focus off your man who is destroying our nation.

This thread is about the failures of Obama and his so called "Affordable" care act.

Completely laughable.
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 13, 2013 - 04:10pm PT
Another one of those fellas who never actually says what politicians or policies he supports.

How is this relevant? Please explain?

Edit: Kos is raycess