1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

Politics Obamacare

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by pan6467, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member


    More likely the changed him over to Medicare.
    They did the same thing to my mother and father.

    Medicaid is for poor people and otherwise. (not just the first reason)
    Medicare is for retired and disabled people.

    Many confuse them because they sound the same.

    And actually, they converted my father from Medicaid to Medicare, because he'd finally qualified from one to the other at retirement age.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2014
  2. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect Donor

    At work..
    but if he has bcbs for life then why make him change??
  3. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize.

    Large City, TX
    When my FIL retired his private insurance was switched to secondary/supplemental from being his main insurance, for which he pays. I'm not sure why, I can't ask really him because after his strokes & TIAs he can't explain much of anything.
  4. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member


    I'll have to ask others who are retired, (and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong...)
    but from what I understand, since Medicare (the retired one) is a entitlement, like Social Security,
    you've been paying into it through-out the years...so the pool is huge (with everyone else too) ...yet running out.

    So what they want in an ideal scenario is to switch to that insurance that been setup for retirees, move them into the main established pool.
    This includes VA pools, corporate pools, Medicaid pools, etc...into the Medicare pool that will be cheaper and more oriented to older folk.

    Remember, corporate pools like BCBS are made for profit, they want to maximize their bottom line.
    And the pools they have setup, tend to focus on keeping more healthy folks in them, then that allows them to keep the money in them, not spending for illnesses.
    That's how they make their money.

    VA and Medicaid...their focus is on either semi-healthy vets, or poorer folk or otherwise...but not for the elderly.

    80% of your typical person's health costs come near the end of their life.
    So, they want them over in the Medicare pool, because it is setup to handle this scenario better, removes them from the "healthy", "younger" pools
    and the Medicare system itself is setup to take care of medical issues for seniors better too. (they may even overpay, from what I understand)

    And if your retired senior, goes into a support/care home, Medicare takes over that. (homes love that money, if it's available)

    Now...at the same time, there are limitations to it...so many individuals like my mom, choose to have supplemental insurance.
    This will account for anything above or beyond Medicare's stated levels/limits...and put them into a better room/facility/etc.

    Another issue is that Medicare, while beneficial to insurance companies and pools of the like, is slowly running out of money.
    It's effectively a "ponzi scheme" where the current healthy working folk putting money into the pool for the senior retired folk.
    Problem is, the volume of "baby boomer" population which is bigger than following generations are sucking up the money faster than they can put it in.
    AND since medical care has increased so much...AND people are living longer.
    This also is sucking up all the money from the pool.

    So are currently looking for ways to resupply this pool...keep it going.

    BUT some (many GOP and Libertarians, etc) don't want anymore taxes or increased taxes to pay for it from shrinking
    ...or even would love to get rid of it all-together. (unfortunately for them, one of their main voters are seniors...who would destroy them for altering it/killing it)
    So it's all a catch-22

    That's one of the things the ACA was about...to assist getting the health care industry under control.
    Not just providing insurance...
    It would help keep Medicaid and Medicare going, extend its lifetime.
  5. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    North Carolina
    Depends on the details. No tax on life necessities, food, rent, medical, education. Tax certain items above specified cut-offs - i.e. autos over $20,000. Tax the heck out of pure luxury items - i.e. luxury yachts.

    I don't know anything about what Canada has done. But a consumption tax can be as simple as sales and property taxes - something already in place - and we can refund taxes paid based on a formula related to something like the first $50,000 of income. Meaning people earning less than $50,000 would pay no tax and the first $50,000 of everyone's income is exempt. there are many ways we could structure it - but in principle I think taxing a person's labor (wages from work) and savings is wrong.
    --- merged: Apr 24, 2014 at 5:49 PM ---
    Both NY and CA are very diverse states - and I think you illustrate if it can be done within those states it can be done nationally. In addition, an insurance company willing to sell nationally would set up negotiated rates on a national basis - perhaps with increased bargaining power helping to keep net costs and premiums lower. Imagine a national insurance company being able to negotiate with big pharma companies - why do we, US, pay more for drugs than others - one reason is that when there is a single payer (national healthcare) that single payer has clout. And if I have choice in a competitive market I can buy based on the factors most important to me, i.e. service, premiums, broad or limited coverage, etc.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2014
  6. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    I don't mean to rank on conservatives in general but there seems to be a certain kind of conservative who believes that poor people made the decision to be poor and deserve to be where they are.
    By giving them health care (and food and heating oil) you are enabling them.
    You're not letting them get out and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

    In Florida where the governor refused to take the Medicaid expansion a young woman with a heart problem died because she was working poor and had a heart condition that cost too much to treat.

    Why Conservatives Are Willing to Let People Like Charlene Dill Die | Alternet

    • Like Like x 1
  7. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect Donor

    At work..
    thats pathetic. imo.... what if the kid was the governors, then what??
    • Like Like x 1
  8. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member


    Then the governor would take care of their own...and use any method to do so.

    See...that's the difficulty...many say, if it's my loved one or self...help me, how's the system going to help me?
    BUT if it's someone else or that person's loved ones...well, they're just shit out of luck, they're going to "use" the system, they should have prepared...etc.

    If you haven't notice, people can be a bit self-centered. :rolleyes:

    Now, I'm not saying that we should save the world. We can't.
    Nor am I saying that some don't take advantage. They do.
    BUT this does not mean because of this, we should trash the whole kit & kabootle.

    It's the logical fallacy of "all or nothing"...if there is one issue or if it doesn't solve everything, it's not worth doing or having.
    This is a trap.
    Because then nothing gets done, nothing moves forward...and the pains of the status quo continue.

    TRY to be proactive, TRY to catch the problems beforehand.
    But that doesn't mean halt everything if you can't.

    And for you selfish people out there...if you think you're being real now...problem is sooner or later, YOU are the one that's going to be vulnerable. (or someone you love)
    Health, Elderly, Employment, Infrastructure, etc and so on.
    That's why we pool together our resources.

    Perhaps you shouldn't be fighting to remove the system.
    Perhaps you should be fighting to IMPROVE the system.

    Because, it doesn't exist, "just because"...it exists due to a previous and/or current issue or need.
    One that was large enough to start it in the first place.
    You don't like it...don't stop it...improve it.

    Frankly, I've seen them trying to improve it, save money, whittle it down.
    You know WHY it doesn't happen?
    Congress, Lobbyists and so on.
    All those who make money and power off the status quo.

    The ACA happened because there was a huge need...they tried to make it happen for DECADES.
    And I don't see any alternative being put out there.
    Other than, "it's not mine, so you can't have it" :rolleyes:

    And that's the problem with first example, "it's not mine, so you can't have it"
    • Like Like x 4
  9. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    This is actually an interesting side-effect of Obamacare...and one I'm taking a serious interest in.
    It is something I have to deal with often as a periodic IT contractor. (there was another article noting this upward trend too...can't find it)

    Personally I would like to factor out the need of benefits in my negotiations.
    Companies have become very stingy or sensitive to it.
    And if I'm in a merc mode at that time of my career...I always have to wonder if I can get it...or force the issue
    And what kind of quality I'll get when it is finally started...and I have to start from scratch again.

    Even if I don't do my own business or work under a 1099...you still have to factor this in.

    I think I'd much rather have one insurance of my own selecting, not the company's, to continue no matter where I go.
    I'm just wary of the stability of this scenario...but I guess, once I establish it...then I wouldn't have to worry about it again.
    Unless the insurance company goes under, stops my policy...and have to use the ACA again.
    These are the questions, considerations and concerns I have.

    But personally, I think it might be better if we separate our employers from our health.
    Too much conflict of interest.

  10. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    But will that lead to nationalized healthcare like it should? Imagine if every single company with over 1,000 employees stops subsidizing it? But they also wouldn't give you the money because there are 10 other people who would be willing to do your job. There aren't as many investors, and they 'need' an extra 3% return this year...

    And that is the problem with allowing the delay of the employer mandate. If you have a job, your employer should be required (taxed) to cover a portion of the health insurance premium (and reduce deductibles to $1000 max in a 12 month period). Everyone is already taxed to provide healthcare for those over 65, why not for those 26-65? If Wal-Mart wants to compete against the corner store, both should be required to insure their workers. Companies shouldn't be able to 'save' money by not offering insurance or not offering a stipend to be used to buy health insurance.
  11. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Much To Do About Nothing... :rolleyes:
    Why does this whole thing seems like a old SNL skit with Roseanne Rosannadanna or Emily Litella


  12. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    North Carolina
    First, a question - have you gone through the process?

    At this point we (America) do not even have a clue regarding the full extent of the mess that has been created. For example Massachusetts, which had about 97% of their people covered, now all of a sudden is having problems -

    Mass. discarding broken ObamaCare site | TheHill

    Here has been my most recent experience - I find out my son is not covered under my Blue Cross plan, obtained through Obamacare - we could never get through on the website and used one of their specialists by phone - everything appeared to be o.k. I paid premiums and everything. Months later I find out my sone is not on our family plan. Call Blue Cross, they can't help, referred to the Obamacare folks. Yes, I do pay my premiums to Blue Cross and they have had no problem cashing the checks! After several weeks we final talk to someone in the Obamacare bureaucracy. They tell me that my son was referred to North Carolina Medicare for them to determine if he qualifies. I have to contact NC Medicare. They have no record of anything. Referred back to the Obamacare folks. Oh, it was not NC Medicare - it was the NC CHIP program. Contact NC CHIP folks - they have no idea of what my wife and I are talking about. Go back to Obamacare folks. I just want my son on my fucking Blue Cross family plan - just as we intended from the beginning. O.k. - you need a letter from NC CHIP saying they declined my son. My wife goes to the local NC CHIP office, and spends 6 hours there for them to decline my son on the NC CHIP program - AND WE MIGHT GET THE LETTER IN A FEW WEEKS!

    Here is the problem that is going to blow up in a few months. Obamacare has created a government middle man. A middle man that is not effectively transferring data to those who need it. I expect there will millions of problem and no one will be able to serve as a point person to solve a problem. This is a shitty program. My son was perfectly insured every moment of his life until now. And after my wife's experience with NC CHIP I feel for all the people who have to go through either Medicaid or the CHIP programs in various states. I may have been better off avoiding this mess. Good luck to all of you who have not had to go through this - if your employer has a group plan pray that they keep it.
  13. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    @Aceventura , I've gone through this whether connected to the ACA or not. It depends on the provider, who may or may not be adequate.
    And just because they are affiliated with BCBS doesn't resolve the issues either.

    For example, I went through one provider which was one I had before, where I had no issue, they were BCBS affiliatated.
    But now, in this case...they were a problem, WHY? because now they were management for the employer who set the terms and policy.
    So, I have nothing but headaches with them since I started using them...and even now that I've left, I'm still battling to get them to pay.

    This company that I'm with now...has the same provider I had issues with before...also with BCBS...but now, I've had no problem with them at all.

    The rules change, the terms change, affiliation with BCBS "may" set some standards, makes it for a bigger pool.
    But it doesn't guarantee that you won't get a provider with no problems.

    I don't say that the ACA doesn't have its issues...it does...and it also depends on what state you're going through.
    North Carolina hasn't had the best relationship with the Fed govt to get this going.
    There are so many factors...it's silly.

    But what are you going to do?? Before there was no option at all...now at least you have something...and now they need to clean it up.
    Welcome to Year One.
    It happens everywhere, everytime.

    I hope you're able to resolve the matter...I know it can be frustrating.
  14. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    There are going to be a lot of problems with the program. That's a given, sad to say, but what is never talked about is all the problems medicaid and social security had when they first started.
    People were mixed up because the same names or, couldn't get ss because they didn't have birth certificates (my grandfather went through that).
    They didn't have the net in those days to trumpet every problem but what's a shame is we have the net now to find out what happened then.
  15. Charlatan

    Charlatan sous les pavés, la plage

    I am not sure why people assume any system will come without issues.
  16. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Where ever I roam
    Pence is the scary type of Republican. One that isn't crazy on the outside, and has some good ideas, but once they get power, they cave into the wants of the big donors and their hidden agenda. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have all had this happen. The state politicians talk to what people want to hear, but they have no idea if the state can do those things and then let big corporations control them once they are in power.

    Obamacare is not perfect, but it is better than any proposal from the right so far. The issue is that there are personal HSA, low cost minimal coverage, or a nationwide single payer plan for the basics (break an arm, cut yourself, kidney stones, etc.) that the Wal-Mart redneck voters would cheer for. Nothing sexual or lifestyle related would be covered though, that is our own fault. We will see if a think tank will come up with something by October...
  17. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Foggy Bottom
    From a policy perspective, the ACA is working quite well, given all the administrative screw ups.

    8 million enrolled in ACA plans, 80% plus have paid first premium and rates, on average, were as low as (or lower) than group rates.

    7+ million enrolled in expanded Medicaid.

    2015 premium rates are coming in now and they are averaging in the single digits...far less than the prediction of skyrocketing, triple digit increases.

    The rate of uninsured in the US has fallen 4 percent to the lowest level in years.

    Seniors are saving $billions on prescriptions by slowly closing the ACA donut hole; those with pre-exising conditions are no longer denied access to affordable insurance, families no longer face financial hardships or bankruptcy as a result of a costly medical emergency.

    There will be more administrative bumps and, most certainly, there will be policy bumps as well. All are easily correctable.

    The country is in a much better place than it was before the ACA.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Those employers thinking of dumping their staff into healthcare exchanges...NO SOUP FOR YOU!!, says the IRS.

    Oh yeah...and the ACA may tame those nasty health insurance cost jumps...

    Why do I get the feeling Obama won't care, if you call it Obamacare.
    hmm...he may even encourage it more & more over time.
    Not a bad thing to be infamous for...care and such. :rolleyes:

    Although the GOP wouldn't want be known for that...
  19. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Foggy Bottom
    The three Rs of the ACA - reinsurance, risk adjustments and risk corridors - will also help keep premium rates from rising too much. Opponents like to call it an insurance company bailout when in fact it is likely to be revenue neutral.

    The provision that requires insurers to justify any rate increases over 10% will also help, except perhaps in red states where insurance commissioners might rubber stamp any rate increase request just out of spite.
  20. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    North Carolina
    Saw this coming:

    Two Million Have Obamacare 'Discrepancies' - NBC News

    I don't want government involved in my healthcare! There is no accountability in the system. Obamacare is a mess and needs to be repealed.