# The ACA/ Obamacare Website Fiasco Thread



## AWP (Oct 18, 2013)

This thing has become such an epic bucket of FAIL I thought it deserved its own thread.

For those of you who haven't followed this debacle, let me bring you up to speed:

You have a $500 million dollar+ website written in part by a foreign company (while to be fair they've done similar work for the "Romneycare" website, are we so lacking in capability that our country has to outsource this task to any foreign company?) which has more or less failed to work from Day One.

Now we have things like this:
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/o...ement-copyrighted-software_763666.html?morans


> The latest indication of the haphazard way in which Healthcare.gov was developed is the uncredited use of a copyrighted web script for a data function used by the site, a violation of the licensing agreement for the software.


 
Or this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/14/five-thoughts-on-the-obamacare-disaster/


> The backroom connection between the insurance companies and the federal government is a disaster. Things are worse behind the curtain than in front of it"
> Here is one example from a carrier–and I have received numerous reports from many other carriers with exactly the same problem. One carrier exec told me that yesterday they got 7 transactions for 1 person – 4 enrollments and 3 cancellations.
> For some reason the system is enrolling, unenrolling, enrolling again, and so forth the same person. This has been going on for a few days for many of the enrollments being sent to the health plans. It has got on to the point that the health plans worry some of these very few enrollments really don’t exist.


 
This:
http://www.californiahealthline.org...structural-problems-caused-aca-website-issues


> In addition, some users who already had established accounts could not access them. Others were asked to verify their email addresses to gain access to their accounts, but the verification link did not work as intended, the _Times_ reports.
> Park said that exchange officials now have a clear understanding of the issues, adding that "contractors have sent reinforcements" and are "working 24-7" to rectify the issues. He suggested that high traffic also was a likely factor for the problems. Park said, "At lower volumes, [the software] would work fine," but "[a]t higher volumes, it has problems."


 
And you wanted to register?
http://arstechnica.com/information-...-button-on-passwords-as-contractors-scramble/


> Amid all the attention, bugs, and work happening at Healthcare.gov in light of the Affordable Care Act, potential registrants talking to phone support today have been told that all user passwords are being reset to help address the site's login woes. And the tech supports behind Healthcare.gov will be asking more users to act in the name of fixing the site, too. According to registrants speaking with Ars, individuals whose logins never made it to the site's database will have to re-register using a different username, as their previously chosen names are now stuck in authentication limbo.


 
Whatever your opinion of the law and all surrounding it, we've spent a half-a-billion dollars on something that doesn't work, wasn't properly tested, and has at least one copyright violation (albeit minor, it speaks volumes about the abilities of the programmers and their QA department). 

Nicely done. Everyone take a bow.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 18, 2013)

someone will be by shortly to tell us we are misguided radicals.


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 18, 2013)

Talk about ballooning costs....from an expected ~$100 million to $630+ million by some accounts.  The developers at CGI Federal might want to review their understanding of minimum *_viable_* product before they take on their next project.


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2013)

I'm just a geek who believes in technology and can't fathom the levels of incompetence necessary for such an epic failure.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 18, 2013)

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is inviting  Kathleen Sebelius to participate in its investigation of Healthcare.gov.  Looks like that invite may have to be upgraded to a subpoena.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/pre...l-committee-hearing-health-care-law’s-botched



> *WASHINGTON, DC* – The House Energy and Commerce Committee today announced a full committee hearing – _PPACA Implementation Failures: Didn’t Know or Didn’t Disclose? –_ to examine the health care law’s troubled rollout on Thursday, October 24 in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Thus far, the administration has rejected the committee’s invitation to participate and publicly answer questions. Committee leaders sent a letter to Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting the administration reconsider its participation. The letter was signed by Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman Emeritus Joe Barton (R-TX), Full Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts (R-PA), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Tim Murphy (R-PA), and Health and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Vice Chairman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX).
> 
> The administration and the companies involved with implementation repeatedly assured the committee that everything was “on track” for October 1; however, the first two and a half weeks of open enrollment have been defined by significant “glitches” that have prevented Americans from being able to even use the system.
> 
> ...


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 18, 2013)

It is awfully hard to defend something that you may agree with ideologically, when the end product is so shitty.


----------



## alibi (Oct 18, 2013)

I never thought I'd say this, but this is a worse release than Window's Vista.  

Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for the hacking and release of the personal information of millions of users?


----------



## AWP (Oct 18, 2013)

alibi said:


> Anyone want to take bets on how long it will take for the hacking and release of the personal information of millions of users?


 
A person I trust who works in the HR and benefits field tried to log into the site several times over last week. She couldn't create an ID because it couldn't run her credit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...snt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/



> The federal government’s decision to force people to apply before shopping, Weaver and Radnofsky write, “proved crucial because, before users can begin shopping for coverage, they must cross a busy digital junction in which data are swapped among separate computer systems built or run by contractors including CGI Group Inc., the healthcare.gov developer, Quality Software Services Inc., a UnitedHealth Group Inc. unit; and credit-checker Experian PLC. If any part of the web of systems fails to work properly, it could lead to a traffic jam blocking most users from the marketplace.”


 


> Weaver and Radnofsky say that the core problem stems from “the slate of registration systems [that] intersect with Oracle Identity Manager, a software component embedded in a government identity-checking system.” The main Healthcare.gov web page collects information using the CGI Group technology. Then that data is transferred to a system built by Quailty Software Services. QSS then sends data to Experian, the credit-history firm. But the key “identity management system” employed by QSS was designed by Oracle, and according to the _Journal_’s sources, the Oracle software isn’t playing nicely with the other information systems.


 
Sleep well, Citizens.


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> It is awfully hard to defend something that you may agree with ideologically, when the end product is so shitty.



Completely agree: a healthy America is good for the entire country. It is in our collective interest to develop and maintain a highly advanced healthcare system. So how do we pay for it AND enable the process to meet the needs of those that provide and receive care?

The web service company should be charged with fraud.


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I'm just a geek who believes in technology and can't fathom the levels of incompetence necessary for such an epic failure.



What Would Robert Redford Say?


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 18, 2013)

It is not just the website itself that is posing problems, now we have to worry about exactly who are the "navigators" and  what will they be doing to "navigate"? 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ncern-about-backgrounds-obamacare-navigators/



> The Daily Caller reported earlier this week that one "enrollment assister" in Lawrence, Kan., had an outstanding warrant for her arrest as well as a troubled financial history. The Heartland Community Health Care Center, where she works, later confirmed to the Caller that she had a bench warrant for an "unpaid medical debt" -- but had been unaware of the warrant. The group said she worked with the courts to satisfy it, and the warrant is "no longer active."





> Other reports have emerged about navigators playing an active role in advocacy for illegal immigrants.
> 
> The Caller reported Thursday that another Kansas navigator was part of a protest last year on Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's property. Kobach has been heavily involved in state-level efforts to strengthen immigration law.
> 
> The Center for Immigration Studies also found that an illegal immigrant from Peru, who is part of a union-tied New York group, is working as a navigator in that state.





> The United Labor Unions Council Local 100, a New Orleans-based nonprofit, was established by ACORN founder Wade Rathke after his larger group was broken up amid scandal in 2009 and banned from receiving taxpayer funds.
> 
> "At a time when our government has ceased functioning due to an appropriations gap, it is ironic that America's tax dollars are being doled out to an entity whose poor stewardship of our funds was well-established by Congress," said Dan Epstein, executive director of Cause of Action, a nonpartisan watchdog group based in Washington.
> 
> The Obama administration in August awarded $67 million to dozens of ObamaCare navigators.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 18, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> The House Energy and Commerce Committee is inviting  Kathleen Sebelius to participate in its investigation of Healthcare.gov.  Looks like that invite may have to be upgraded to a subpoena.


 
Based on what I've seen in the last few years, I'm pretty sure executive branch political appointees aren't require to appear in front of Congress.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> It is awfully hard to defend something that you may agree with ideologically, when the end product is so shitty.



Ideologically I disagree with being taxed because I want to not be a part of a US govt mandated healthcare (riggghhhht) system that relies on the healthy to pay for (a) those who give two fucks about their health up front but wants help on the back end while also trying to do good for (b) those with medical conditions which are no fault of their own.  

Next thing will be a managed food plan so lazy people can eat off the backs of the hard working ...


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 19, 2013)

I just love the fact that for those that actually have to buy into this shit, many are finding out that you're fucked 3 ways.

You're fucked because the program you had that you could afford, barely, you can't keep
You're fucked because it's double what you were paying for the new shit
You're fucked because it's quadruple what you were paying to just say fuck health care.

Couple it with the years-in-the-making debacle for deployment of this shit, the fact that many states want nothing to do with it at a state level, and you're being taxed for NOT participating in interstate commerce (which is where the feds, other than income tax, actually GET to tax you)... yeah. I don't even know how the SCOTUS said this shit was remotely legal.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 19, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Next thing will be a managed food plan so lazy people can eat off the backs of the hard working ...


I think we are already there. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...-sparks-walmart-shopping-sprees-in-louisiana/





Ranger Psych said:


> You're fucked because it's quadruple what you were paying to just say fuck health care.


I agree with everything you said RP but this.  Everyone keeps saying that this fiasco is health care.  It is merely health "coverage".  None us have seen the "care" part yet.  Just wait.  If the "coverage" part is this messed up wait until the implementation of the actual "care" or lack there of kicks in.  It will not be any less painful.  Remember, they had to pass it to find out what was or (wasnt) in it.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 19, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Remember, they had to pass it to find out what was or (wasnt) in it.



Read a couple of days ago that Nancy Pelosi received an award. She didn't find out what is was for until they gave it to her.......


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 19, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> ...  Just wait.  If the "coverage" part is this messed up wait until the implementation of the actual "care" or lack there of kicks in...




Veterans Administration...

If people want to know how the managed care portion of this will go all they have to do is take a visit to a couple VA hospitals and poll those patients.  After speaking to quite a few Vietnam and Korea vets who choose to drive hundreds of miles to be treated at Walter Reed instead of waiting on the shoddy care provided by the contract physicians I am not looking forward to those  same years in my own life now when I have to choose between shoddy care in the VA system or through Obama Care...  

Maybe I too will one day be one of those old guys driving monthly 500+ miles to WRNMMC because it's the lesser of three evils.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Next thing will be a *managed food* plan so lazy people can eat off the backs of the hard working ...



I'm not against *that* to a degree however IF the sheeple allow government regulation, then, via proven track record of government meddling = fucked-upedness, we're screwed.

If you smoke, you should pay more for smokes.  If you drink, you should pay more for drinks.  If you eat shitty food with little nutritional value and really feel the need for a 72oz sugary soda, you should pay more.  WHY?  Because you are choosing to ingest crap that will affect your health.  Why should healthy Americans be on the hook financially for the bad diet choices of other Americans?  Don't give me the BS about "the poor only have access to McDonald's"...cigarettes...beer.

If taxpayers are mandated to subsidize something (healthy paying for sick), I chose to subsidize fruits, veggies, etc.  High quality food is expensive (unless your @goon175 who shops at Wegmans) so why don't we allow more Americans to have access to it?

Unhealthy Americans are a danger to national security.  Cocaine is illegal.  Therefore, certain unhealthy foods should be too.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/20...-Rats-treat-Oreos-like-cocaine-study-suggests


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

As far as agreeing ideologically, I think that our system is fucked. It is fucked for numerous reasons. The first is that you can not truly shop for care. This kinda takes the choice out of the free market. It is also screwed up that if something happens to someone and they don't have insurance everyone already pays for it anyways, and by then it is too late. I think it is screwed up that people choose to ride the ambulance to the ER for a sniffle because they can. I think that an MRI costs 3500 dollars is absurd. I cannot choose to go somewhere else and get an MEI. I think that healthcare is ballooning at a rate that is hard to compare to anything and the govt is trying to help people get it.


Other than a few anecdotal stories about losing their current coverage, most Americans are not to heavily affected by this bill. I'm not at all. I don't have to get insurance through this, just like the 85% of other Americans that don't need to be a part of this plan.

I have also already pointed out, and I don't know how it keeps getting brought up, that at no point will the government administer care similarly to the VA. It is not a fair comparison to compare the two.

There are absolutely problems with Obamacare, however there are some positives, many of the plans are expensive in the case of deductibles. People like to point out how the deductibles go up to almost 10k in some plans. What isn't pointed out is that with zero insurance(which is the likely alternative to those plans) those people would be liable for way more than just the 10k deductible. Many of those high deductible plans have monthly premiums less than a 100 dollars. If you don't think you are paying for others healthcare now, you live in a fantasy world.


----------



## JHD (Oct 19, 2013)

A


lindy said:


> I'm not against *that* to a degree however IF the sheeple allow government regulation, then, via proven track record of government meddling = fucked-upedness, we're screwed.
> 
> If you smoke, you should pay more for smokes.  If you drink, you should pay more for drinks.  If you eat shitty food with little nutritional value and really feel the need for a 72oz sugary soda, you should pay more.  WHY?  Because you are choosing to ingest crap that will affect your health.  Why should healthy Americans be on the hook financially for the bad diet choices of other Americans?  Don't give me the BS about "the poor only have access to McDonald's"...cigarettes...beer.
> 
> ...



Agree with this so much.  Welfare recipients should be required to Buy from a preapproved list of foods, and forfeit their right to vote until off of welfare.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

JHD said:


> A
> 
> 
> Agree with this so much.  Welfare recipients should be required to Buy from a preapproved list of foods, and forfeit their right to vote until off of welfare.



Forfeit their right to vote? Are you kidding me? I hope you never find yourself in dire straights friend.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

JHD said:


> Welfare recipients should be required to Buy from a pre-approved list of foods, and forfeit their right to vote until off of welfare.



Well, I don't advocate taking away their choice exactly BUT a system should be set up where it is financially beneficial (and conversely disadvantageous) to purchase certain foods.

If we have to pay for something, let's be proactive to enable health vice reactive and providing treatment.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I have also already pointed out, and I don't know how it keeps getting brought up, that at no point will the government administer care similarly to the VA. It is not a fair comparison to compare the two.
> 
> There are absolutely problems with Obamacare, however there are some positives, many of the plans are expensive in the case of deductibles. People like to point out how the deductibles go up to almost 10k in some plans. What isn't pointed out is that with zero insurance(which is the likely alternative to those plans) those people would be liable for way more than just the 10k deductible. Many of those high deductible plans have monthly premiums less than a 100 dollars. If you don't think you are paying for others healthcare now, you live in a fantasy world.



I'm interested in more info in the first.  Would you expound on the point?

Secondly, Obamacare cannot and will not be able to support itself financially without significant injection of cash (either by new healthy enrollees or government takeover).

I got into a heated discussion at work yesterday: I firmly believe that Tricare will be converted to Obamacare and military healthcare will go the way of BAH (you'll get some cash intended to cover a large percentage.  Back in the day, we had to take our leases into S1 and THAT (to a max amount of course) was the amount of VHA we received).  Obamacare needs cash AND enrollees.  Politically it would be disastrous to nationalize the program but if Tricare is converted, it's still "free market choice).  It's going to happen.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

lindy said:


> I'm interested in more info in the first.  Would you expound on the point?
> 
> Secondly, Obamacare cannot and will not be able to support itself financially without significant injection of cash (either by new healthy enrollees or government takeover).
> 
> I got into a heated discussion at work yesterday: I firmly believe that Tricare will be converted to Obamacare and military healthcare will go the way of BAH (you'll get some cash intended to cover a large percentage.  Back in the day, we had to take our leases into S1 and THAT (to a max amount of course) was the amount of VHA we received).  Obamacare needs cash AND enrollees.  Politically it would be disastrous to nationalize the program but if Tricare is converted, it's still "free market choice).  It's going to happen.



How do you want me to expand, in the VA your doctors PAs and nursing staff are all govt employees who decide your treatment and care. Under The ACA you still have a private doctor you are at a private hospital, and you and your doctor make care decisions without input from the .gov. Pretty much the system is unchanged today from what it was in Sept 30th. Except now you must have health insurance. 

Now as far as the tricare thing, I don't think that is coming, because you already have insurance. Just like congress, the senate and the entire federal govt and 85% of people in this country. You are only subject to the ACA if you don't have insurance.


----------



## JHD (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Forfeit their right to vote? Are you kidding me? I hope you never find yourself in dire straights friend.



Hard to believe, maybe, but i dont mean this in a harsh way. I don't think all welfare recipients are there by choice. But I say the above as we are in desperate need of welfare reform and other entitlement reform. This will never happen as there are so many in they system that will always vote for candidates that won't do a damn thing about it.   

There needs to be a strong enough incentive to get those who are able to work off of their behinds and out of the system. Right none, there is none for those who don't really care to be out.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 19, 2013)

Et tu Huffington Post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...id7|htmlws-main-bb|dl18|sec1_lnk3&pLid=393171



> Under these circumstances, the lion's share of the people who do whatever is necessary to sign up through HealthCare.gov are likely to be the sickest and most expensive to cover because they have the greatest need, Laszewski said. That would make the pool of people covered very costly, causing health insurers to lose money and likely rethink whether they want to participate in the exchanges, he said. "The fundamental threat to Obamacare is we don't get enough healthy people in the pool to keep the rates reasonable, and they are in grave danger of that problem," he said.
> 
> If these problems persist longer -- weeks, months, a whole year -- the entire Obamacare project falls apart, Laszewski said: "It's a holy shit moment."


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 19, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Veterans Administration...
> 
> If people want to know how the managed care portion of this will go all they have to do is take a visit to a couple VA hospitals and poll those patients.  After speaking to quite a few Vietnam and Korea vets who choose to drive hundreds of miles to be treated at Walter Reed instead of waiting on the shoddy care provided by the contract physicians I am not looking forward to those  same years in my own life now when I have to choose between shoddy care in the VA system or through Obama Care...
> 
> Maybe I too will one day be one of those old guys driving monthly 500+ miles to WRNMMC because it's the lesser of three evils.


I used the VA as an example why a National System would fail, my liberal friends just couldn't (or wouldn't) comprehend the level of fail in that system.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I used the VA as an example why a National System would fail, my liberal friends just couldn't (or wouldn't) comprehend the level of fail in that system.



I also think that a single payer system would lead to a system like the VA. We are a long way from a single payer system.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I also think that a single payer system would lead to a system like the VA. We are a long way from a single payer system.


Yup, 10 years, maybe 15.

ACA wll devastate the rural health care system, and then work itself into urban private practice.  Corporations will take over the entire system, then work a political deal to reform the reform (aka Tort Reform).

I would have supported ACA had it included Tort Reform.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

These rockstars that created the website...are they the same people who designed the security measures to PROTECT the enrollment data?

Just imagine all the PII that's out there for the taking.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 19, 2013)

It looks like the cost of the coverage available on the exchanges will actually leave quite a few people unable to afford the "affordable" coverage.  Take a look at the chart on the link illustrating how many will be left out of the exchanges.  Note the footnote on it "excludes legal immigrants who have been in the country for five years or less and immigrants who are not lawfully present".
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/these-are-the-americans-obamacare-forgot.html/4/




> “It is unlikely that people who fall into the coverage gap will be able to afford Marketplace coverage: The national average premium for a 40-year-old individual purchasing coverage through the Marketplace is $270 per month for a silver plan and $224 per month for a bronze plan, which equates to about half of income for those at the lower income range of people in the gap and about a quarter of income for those at the higher income range of people in the gap,” explained the October 2013 issue brief.
> 
> “Further, people in the coverage gap are ineligible for cost-sharing subsidies for Marketplace plans and may face additional out-of-pocket costs up to $6,350 a year if they were to purchase
> 
> Marketplace coverage. Given the limited budgets of people in the coverage gap, these costs are likely prohibitively expensive.”


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 19, 2013)

lindy said:


> If we have to pay for something, let's be proactive to enable health vice reactive and providing treatment.



As far as I know, at least a few European countries subsidize the crap out of multivitamins.  A friend from The Hague at one point was confused upon entering an American CVS and seeing the prices of vitamins because he figured that subsidizing things that promoted good health would be an obvious thing to subsidize.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

As the saying goes, "When in doubt, act like a viking." 

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Top...y Profiles/New Folder/Norway_profile_2012.pdf

What is the role of government?
Much of the health system is government-controlled. Norway’s 429 municipalities, with additional funding from the
Norwegian Health Economics Administration, are responsible for funding and delivering primary care services, including health promotion, preventive medicine, rehabilitative services, emergency care, and long-term nursing care.

Who is covered?
Coverage is universal. The nationally managed and financed health system is built on the principle that *all legal residents have equal access* regardless of socioeconomic status, country of origin, and area of residence. European Union residents have, through common agreements within the EU, the same access to health services as legal residents. *For undocumented immigrants*, the access is limited to emergency acute care. *Private health insurance is growing, but covers only about 5 percent of health care services—mainly elective services.*

http://www.legemiddelverket.no/engl...-and-pharmaceutical-system/sider/default.aspx

*Health care system*
The Norwegian health care system is founded on the principles of universal access, decentralisation and free choice of provider.

It is financed by *taxation*, together with income-related employee and employer contributions and out-of-pocket payments (co-payments). All residents are covered by the National Insurance Scheme (Folketrygden, NIS), managed by the Norwegian Health Economics Administration (Helseøkonomiforvaltningen, HELFO). Private medical insurance is limited.

*While health care policy is controlled centrally, responsibility for the provision of health care is decentralised.* Local authorities at municipal level organise and finance primary health care services according to local demand. The central Government has overall managerial and financial responsibility for the hospital sector. Norway’s four regional health authorities control the provision of specialised health services by 27 health enterprises.

*Most hospitals in Norway are public hospitals, funded and owned by the state. A small number of hospitals are privately owned. However, most private hospitals are funded by the public.*

All Norwegian citizens are invited to choose their general practitioner (GP) from a list. 99% of Norwegians have chosen to do so. Outpatient doctors act as gatekeepers for specialied care.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

If only our country had 5 million people.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> If only our country had 5 million people.



Size matters?:wall:


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 19, 2013)

lindy said:


> Size matters?:wall:



Probably somewhat; while it is still possible for such a system to work in the US (I think it is definitely doable), the difference in populations _is_ a factor of ~63.  It is likely a logistical issue that can be overcome, but it is still too large a difference to try and ignore.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 19, 2013)

JHD said:


> A
> 
> 
> Agree with this so much.  Welfare recipients should be required to Buy from a preapproved list of foods, and forfeit their right to vote until off of welfare.



Erm, you are if you're on WIC. Welfare doesn't even fucking pay that much.


----------



## JHD (Oct 19, 2013)

WIC, yes.  Food stamps?  I don't know for certain, but I don't think so.


----------



## medicchick (Oct 19, 2013)

JHD said:


> WIC, yes.  Food stamps?  I don't know for certain, but I don't think so.


Yes and no.  Hot food (deli), energy drinks, booze, household goods (paper products, cleaners, pet food) and no fountain drinks were not allowed when I worked at Fred Meyers.  I do not know if not items have been added.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 19, 2013)

This is what is currently posted on the USDA site.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 19, 2013)

lindy said:


> I'm interested in more info in the first.  Would you expound on the point?
> 
> Secondly, Obamacare cannot and will not be able to support itself financially without significant injection of cash (either by new healthy enrollees or government takeover).
> 
> I got into a heated discussion at work yesterday: I firmly believe that Tricare will be converted to Obamacare and military healthcare will go the way of BAH (you'll get some cash intended to cover a large percentage.  Back in the day, we had to take our leases into S1 and THAT (to a max amount of course) was the amount of VHA we received).  Obamacare needs cash AND enrollees.  Politically it would be disastrous to nationalize the program but if Tricare is converted, it's still "free market choice).  It's going to happen.


Retirees will get booted into Obamacare first, then family members.  
The unintended consequence will be a run away from the Military because an E-3/4 with kids will be unable to afford Obamacare.

As far as the welfare class voting, something has to be done to put some of the welfare cost on their backs. They vote for the guy/gal that is going to continue giving "free" money, at some point in time the welfare class will overcome the producers bringing the economy down.  

IIRC Landowners were the 1st voters, and the privilege has been extended (adding women for example).  

Putting limits on how/where the money is spent, or giving States an incentive to crack down on fraud may help.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 19, 2013)

Tricare counts as coverage in the military. Tricare for us means we don't have to fuck with the stupidity.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Oct 19, 2013)

I don't see any reason you guys can't have a working universal access health system right now, you all pay enough in tax.  I'm pretty sure the financial aid given to places like Pakistan and Egypt would do a hell of a lot to offset the costs.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> I don't see any reason you guys can't have a working universal access health system right now, you all pay enough in tax.  I'm pretty sure the financial aid given to places like Pakistan and Egypt would do a hell of a lot to offset the costs.



Because people don't want it. We could have it for sure. Prolly half of Americans do not want universal healthcare, or anyone telling them they need health insurance either. That is why the healthcare law is so divisive.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> I don't see any reason you guys can't have a working universal access health system right now, you all pay enough in tax.  I'm pretty sure the financial aid given to places like Pakistan and Egypt would do a hell of a lot to offset the costs.



There are people in America who believe without a doubt, that if we have universal healthcare we are a step away from a Nazi German style dictator controlled socialist paradise.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2013)

People should be up in arms about the ACA BECAUSE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION. Remember how it was passed? Changes made, an 800 or so page bill is delivered around midnight (give or take) and then voted on the next morning? Pelosi's "You have to pass it to see what's in it" comment. The legislative side was an abortion.

Look at some of the details to the plan itself. The tax that isn't a tax, the penalties, the effects on businesses large and small...

Now we have the website, the purpose of this thread. The website is like the Jacksonville Jaguars...even when it scores it still loses. I'll bet as time passes its security will be like the Jags' defense: porous.

The United States is the most powerful nation on the planet and we couldn't find a way to properly implement a health care plan for every CITIZEN of this country?

'Murica.

Learn to swim.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 19, 2013)

And another Acolyte throws herself under the bus for the cause.  The latest is senior communications advisor Tara McGuinness.  
http://twitchy.com/2013/10/19/pathe...bamacare-success-story-that-wasnt-successful/

Ryan Lizza, correspondent for the New Yorker attempts to show how easy it is to sign up for Obamacare..but then...the dreaded glitch...


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> I don't see any reason you guys can't have a working universal access health system right now, you all pay enough in tax.  I'm pretty sure the financial aid given to places like Pakistan and Egypt would do a hell of a lot to offset the costs.



They just released $1.8 Billion (that we don't have) to PK.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 19, 2013)

JHD said:


> Agree with this so much.  Welfare recipients should...forfeit their right to vote until off of welfare.



I totally agree.  The democratic party has been buying votes with welfare for years.  Think about it for a moment, if you are being subsidized are you going to vite for the party who is trying to cut/balance the budget or the one who is offering you more shit?  The abusers of the system dont give a rats ass about bankrupting the nation as long as they get theirs...

The "Obama phone" woman is a prime example of a bought vote.  The fact that welfare jumped 32% (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...pending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/?page=all) and food stamp enrollment is up 70% (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/food-stamp-president-enrollment-70-percent-under-o/) since Obama took office.  THis not to mention the fact that the government wants more people to enroll into SNAP (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/) not to mention the USDA seeking to give our tax money away to non citizen (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/12/u...mp-participation-among-non-citizens-citizens/) latinos in an effort to continue to buy elections...

Yes I feel that when you go on the government dole you forfeit the right to vote.  Once back on their feet they are more than welcome to vote...


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> There are people in America who believe without a doubt, that if we have universal healthcare we are a step away from a Nazi German style dictator controlled socialist paradise.



Likewise on the other side there are those who believe all the healthcare issues this nation has would be solved if only the government were in charge of the healthcare system.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Likewise on the other side there are those who believe all the healthcare issues this nation has would be solved if only the government were in charge of the healthcare system.



Good point.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 19, 2013)

I think the biggest issue with the ACA is most of us opposed to it feel this way because we dont want to be forced to buy healthcare insurance if we dont want it.  However if we dont buy into it we are taxed/fined for not doing so - its a crock of shit.

Then there is the POTUS himself exempting those who he wants to from the mandate cough...unions...cough and big business while the little guy gets the shaft.  It just isnt right and too many people are seeing through his BS.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2013)

lindy said:


> They just released $1.8 Billion (that we don't have) to PK.


 
My head just exploded....and my base will as soon as that money is given to the local TB/ HQN commanders.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> .
> 
> Then there is the POTUS himself exempting those who he wants to from the mandate cough...unions...cough and big business while the little guy gets the shaft.  It just isnt right and too many people are seeing through his BS.



It is complete and utter BS. That companies don't have to comply but individuals do, is in my opinion shameful. 

I shouldn't be surprised but I still am, how did they fuck this up so bad?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 19, 2013)

Because anything the government touches, it fucks up.

Pure and simple.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Because anything the government touches, it fucks up.
> 
> Pure and simple.



I know but I didn't think it would be this terrible.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> People should be up in arms about the ACA BECAUSE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.
> 
> The United States is the most powerful nation on the planet and we couldn't find a way to properly implement a health care plan for every *CITIZEN* of this country?



Whoa. That's racist right there since you're clearly trying to exclude illegal immigrants.  If it is against Federal law to conduct a resident check to ensure voter registration, it will be DAMN SURE illegal to check the status for health care.

Where is that $13 billion from JP Morgan going to go?  Oh, that's right to pay for the ACA website updates.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> It is complete and utter BS. That companies don't have to comply but individuals do, is in my opinion shameful.


 
They aren't going to impose a financial burden on the people paying for their re-election campaign, comped hotel rooms, and the other trappings of power.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

Guess who owns the company that runs the Obamacare call centers?

*General Dynamics to Acquire Vangent, Inc., from Veritas Capital 
Transaction will expand company’s exposure in fast-growing healthcare IT market.*

*FALLS CHURCH, Va. – General Dynamics (NYSE: GD) has entered a definitive agreement to acquire Vangent Holding Corp., the parent company of Vangent, Inc., a leading provider of healthcare information-technology and business systems to federal agencies, in a cash transaction valued at approximately $960 million. Vangent is majority-owned by The Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P. Vangent will become part of General Dynamics Information Technology, which has been providing healthcare information-technology (IT) systems and solutions to federal, commercial and military customers for nearly 30 years.*

http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=16966


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 19, 2013)

I knew the particular stench of fail seemed somewhat familiar. It's the health care equivalent of the SMART-T!! Yup yup, you're all gonna die.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2013)

War's winding down, gotta' make money off of the gov't somehow....


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Then there is the POTUS himself exempting those who he wants to from the mandate cough...unions...cough and big business while the little guy gets the shaft.  It just isnt right and too many people are seeing through his BS.


Are you referring to the one-year exemptions that were granted recently? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/

As for your assertion that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote...that's so ludicrous that I'm not even going to touch it.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 19, 2013)

Or this?
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/10/washingtons_obamacare_exemptio.html



> But in a classic case of Washington protecting its own, the Obama administration announced an illegal administrative fix to this provision in order to take the financial sting out and largely undo it. This special rule, with no basis in the Obamacare statute itself, allows members of Congress to keep many of their staff members off the exchange entirely. And members of Congress and staff who do go on the exchange would get a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy (about $5,000 for single workers/$10,000 for families) unavailable to all other Americans at the same income levels. This creates a special exemption from the normal Obamacare rules and costs for members of Congress and their staff.





> To reverse this Washington double standard, I've introduced legislation that would end this Obamacare exemption for Washington. It would reverse the illegal Obama administration rule by requiring all members of Congress and absolutely all their staff to purchase their health insurance on the Obamacare exchange without the help of special taxpayer-funded subsidies. It also would create the same rule for the president, vice president and all of their political appointees.
> 
> Requiring this is really important for two reasons. First, it's a matter of basic fairness. The first rule of American democracy should be that all laws that Washington imposes on America apply in exactly the same way to Washington. Second, there's a very practical dynamic. The sooner Washington eats its own cooking, the sooner it will start getting things right - on Obamacare and a lot more.


----------



## JHD (Oct 19, 2013)

I don't want to derail the thread, but it is all sort of related.  The fact of the matter is that many times people on welfare get a better deal taking welfare rather than working due to the taxes assessed on wages and benefits.  Many of those people simply will not vote for a change as they are better off economically accepting welfare and being a drain on the system, rather than working and contributing to society via tax payments.  I am not saying that all on welfare have this attitude.  They don't.  But a great many do.

They shouldn't get to have all the benefits of welfare and continue to vote for those in office to ensure that working people continue to support their benefits.  There has to be a trade off because the current system is not sustainable.  In a few short years, as we have discussed elsewhere, we will be paying interest on our interest of our debt service. 

Obamacare is doing the tango on the last straw, in addition to us giving away boatloads of money.

I will go one better that many won't like either, but often tough choices aren't the most desirable choices to get the desired outcome.  If working persons benefits are taxed, welfare benefits should be taxed as well.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Are you referring to the one-year exemptions that were granted recently? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/
> .



The employer mandate is what he is talking about.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> War's winding down, gotta' make money off of the gov't *American people* somehow....



Fixed the spelling on your post.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 19, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I'm just a geek who believes in technology and can't fathom the levels of incompetence necessary for such an epic failure.




Apparently you forget the dozen years it took to upgrade the FBI system if your shocked by these events.  You get what you pay for when you pay contractors to do the work.  Free you know that criticism isn't about the contractors serving overseas.  It about the governments over dependency on contractors to serve it's day to day operation that is the problem.  You get what you pay for and not a nickel more when you hire people to complete work that have no ownership in.

When we migrated from GroupWise to Exchange email this year, at my job, I worked 60-70 hours a week and had 2 days off from work from mid June to the first weekend in August because me and another guy owned that migration and we made it work and are CEO, who use to work for 3M, said it was the smoothest IT implementation he has ever been through.  Of course our implementation isn't comparable in size and scope but then again we didn't have staffs of people either.


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Apparently you forget the dozen years it took to upgrade the FBI system if your shocked by these events.  You get what you pay for when you pay contractors to do the work.  Free you know that criticism isn't about the contractors serving overseas.  It about the governments over dependency on contractors to serve it's day to day operation that is the problem.  You get what you pay for and not a nickel more when you hire people to complete work that have no ownership in.


 
I haven't forgotten it or the UN debacle and could find other examples if I wanted. Of course, SAP had a role in those failures and I'm sure it exists in a gazillion places on the healthcare.gov site.

Here's why I'm taking them to task and why I'm pissed. This is national, it is a law, it is a requirement, and the people who shoved this down our throats have allowed this to happen. "Ah, we need a 100 million to do this. I meant 500 million. Perchance, could we have 600 million?"

Nonsense. I understand IT rollouts and the time involved. A cornerstone of this damn healthcare issue is this website, the ability for Americans to access it and for us to be all green and shit, paperless and earth friendly.

ALL of the debate, the cost, the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and this damned website doesn't work, can't work, may never work, on top of the high probability that PII security is weak

I don't give tinker's damn about the FBI or the UN or the hotmamas.com upgrade or whatever, we have to stop accepting this "whatever" attitude when it comes to critical systems and their implementation. We expect failure I think. Hell, I wonder if we want things to fail because we're too goddamned stupid or lazy to use something that works. If it fails we can blame the other guy.

The planet, THE ENTIRE PLANET, is digital. There are goat-fuckers in remote places on this earth with cellphones and sat TV. If the industrialized nations of this earth can't figure out how to make websites  and link data then we're the caveman equivalent of that guy who kept burning himself because fire was a mystery.

While my thoughts on contracting are known around here, I guess, it is quite simple: contractors fail because contracting officers fail, lawyers fail, and profit is king. There's a reason the military has Tasks, Conditions, and Standards PLUS the ability to enforce failures. A "lack of ownership" is an excuse, lawyers and companies won't do what's right and thin the herd when needed. Carrot and stick, cause and effect.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 19, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> I don't see any reason you guys can't have a working universal access health system right now, you all pay enough in tax.  I'm pretty sure the financial aid given to places like Pakistan and Egypt would do a hell of a lot to offset the costs.



My uncle owns a tool and die company and has run it successfully most of his adult life.  We got into a healthcare discussion a few years back and I had mentioned if we had a health care system like Canada we would have budget surplus in this country and everyone would have healthcare coverage.  He countered that he didn't want to pay $40 for a case of beer like the Canadians has to (not so much a comment on actual prices as how the system was paid for).  I came back with how much did his company pay for his and my aunts health insurance.  He said $2000 per month.  I followed up with how many cases of beer could he buy with that $2000?

Single payer works today and it works in this country.  Go out and Google drug cost comparison between the VA and Medicare.  The VA can negotiate drug cost and Medicare can't and because of that Medicare pay twice as much as the VA for the exact same drugs.  The latest stats I read was Medicare pays $14 billion more for medicine then they would if they could negotiate the same prices as the VA.

I have said it once and I will say it again.  The status quo in healthcare has gotten us a systems that cost twice as much as the next closest industrialized country.  Healthcare cost our killing our government, our business community and our families period.  It's not liberal or conservative it's just fact.  The ACA isn't going to change those dynamics much if any at all.  Change will happen because it has to happen.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 20, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Are you referring to the one-year exemptions that were granted recently? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/
> 
> As for your assertion that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote...that's so ludicrous that I'm not even going to touch it.



Employer mandate...

What makes it ludicrous, your disagreement?  Strong argument, based on that maybe I should reconsider my position...


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 20, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Employer mandate...
> 
> What makes it ludicrous, your disagreement?  Strong argument, based on that maybe I should reconsider my position...


It's ludicrous because you're punishing someone for being poor or otherwise using assistance.  Whether someone is a welfare cheat or if they're simply down on their luck, you want to take away a constitutionally-protected right.  And what kind of welfare are we talking about?  I received a Pell Grant this year, and the state of California waived my tuition fees because I got great grades.  Between my EAS and the start of my GI bill benefits (a period of roughly four months) I was on unemployment.  Should I not be able to vote?  My Dad will be drawing Social Security and disability payments (non-VA).  Should he not vote either?  What about the approximately 50 million Americans currently covered by Medicare?  Those are all forms of welfare and the people covered by them would be excluded from voting.

You know why welfare spending went up during the first four years of Obama's presidency?  It could've had something to do with it coinciding with the recession, maybe.  This notion that people on the dole are simply going to vote for the guy that gives them more stuff is pretty simplistic.  You want to know an interesting thing that the 2010 census revealed?  That white, rural women are the single greatest group of welfare recipients in the country (for the life of me I cannot find the data, but I've posted it here before).  So that group voted mostly for Obama in the 2012 election, right?  Nope.  Check figure 1B http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/the-elephant-in-the-exit_b_2094354.html


----------



## JHD (Oct 20, 2013)

Deathy, you are correct in that recipients of welfare went up during Obama's presidency because of the recession.  But it was fattened up by Obama's stimulus package.  I have attached a Link below, _The Work vs. Welfare Tradeoff 2013,_ below.  In that document, you will find the statement, "In 11 states, welfare pays more than the average pre-tax first year wage for a teacher. In 39 states it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the 3 most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer".  

According to the authors, the value of welfare benefits has actually increased in 32 states and the District of Columbia since the first report in 1995.

In the most generous state, Hawaii, for example, state benefits provide the equivalent of $49,175 per year, up from $41,910 in 1995 (adjusted for inflation). To equal the value of those benefits, a Hawaiian would have to take a job paying (before taxes) $60,590, up from $55,001 in 1995.

Welfare was meant to be a temporary solution to a short term problem.  It has become a way of life to some pretty smart people who know a good deal when they see it.


http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/work-versus-welfare-trade


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 20, 2013)

It may seem ludicrous now, but poor people didn't get to vote when our country was founded.  Only rich people (i.e. landowners) did.  Specifically, white male landowners.  Only allowing landowners to vote makes some modicum of sense, because they tend to be more educated and more vested in the community.  The poor people, the belief goes, are inherently transient, lack the sophistication to vote, are easily swayed by emotion, and will vote for those who give them the most freebies.  This quote might sum up how some who hold this belief feel:



> “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover.  that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”



...and there might be some degree of truth to the above quote.  Of course, there are also massive problems inherent in a system that only allows economic elites to vote.


These days, I'm totally good with every citizen getting to vote, as long as 1) only citizens get to vote, and 2) citizens only get to vote once per election.


----------



## JHD (Oct 20, 2013)

Mara, I largely agree with your post, and philosophically don't want to take away a freedom.  Practically speaking though, it needs to happen for the term that a person receives govt money.  OK.  Let welfare recipients keep their vote.  But tax their benefits at a similar rate to those working at comparable wages.  And tighten eligibility requirements.  Also, make them stick to a prescribed budget based on family size, and adjusted for geographic location, and make budget counseling a requirement so they can learn how to handle their money wisely.

But since that won't happen, the welfare, interest, and healthcare portions will continue to grow.  The biggest sections impacted would be defense and our woeful spending, at the Federal level, on education.  The fact that welfare recipients earn more than a first year teacher in our country is disgraceful.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 20, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> My Dad will be drawing Social Security and disability payments (non-VA).  Should he not vote either?  What about the approximately 50 million Americans currently covered by Medicare?  Those are all forms of welfare and the people covered by them would be excluded from voting.


I disagree with part of this statement.  People on Social Security and Medicare A have  paid into the system over the years in via the deduction from their paychecks.  People that utilize Medicare B pay a monthly premium for it.  People on Medicare D purchase their prescription plan via a private insurance company and also pay a monthly premium.  So while these programs may earn the moniker "welfare" I disagree it should be referred to as such.  They paid and continue to pay for these programs.  Therefore, in our theoretical land of "no voting for people on welfare" I think these people should continue to be allowed their right to vote.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Oct 20, 2013)

I get a kick out of the "in theory" and "ideology" folks. I fukn hate the MSM.

When does your theoretical ideology change??? What does it take to change your mind as to your affilitation??

The ACA should be the last straw, (after Benghazi - IRS - Voter fraud - EBT fraud - Fast and Furious - Veterans getting fucked in the arse...etc...etc) not the 1st straw or the "Well, it should have worked, maybe next time we Dims will get our shit together but we're going to spend millions more trying again" straw. 

2c.



cback0220 said:


> I would check your stats. Comparing welfare money by stated isn't always the best comparison, welfare should be higher in Hawaii than in NC. You prolly need 58K a year to live there. My army buddies said they couldn't afford beers when they were stationed at Schofield.
> *Above you also stated that while receiving money from the Feds you shouldn't be able to vote, well by that logic, servicemembers, veterans, and govt employees should not get to vote either*.


 
I'm fairly certain that BEING EMPLOYED by the government is 180 degrees away from receiving EBT / food stamps / free IPhones. For you to not understand that inferrence is incomprehensible.

I was in Honolulu last year and linked up with Teufel. Fairly certain that I saw PLENTY of GI's on the beach enjoying a few but I'd have to ask T about that. ....not a good analogy.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 20, 2013)

Good points.  But AFAIK, there is nothing related to welfare in our Constitution.  The right to vote, however, is in it.  So instead of unConstitutionally restricting legitimate rights, let's restrict things that are NOT fundamental rights.  I have no fundamental objection to welfare and other social handouts, if for no other reason it keeps large swathes of people from resorting to violent crime in order to feed themselves and their families.  The issue isn't welfare per se, it is how it is administered.  Welfare should be subsistence living only.  You shouldn't be able to attain a middle-class lifestyle by being on the public dole.  Welfare should pay less than any legitimate profession.  Enough to live healthy on, but that's about it.  There should also be some social stigma attached to being on the public dole, if one is healthy enough to work.

Finally, there should be no "jobs that Americans aren't willing to do" (a frequent justification for illegal alien labor) with so many Americans on public assistance for so long.  If someone wants anything more than a subsistence handout for the government, go out and do one of those jobs currently being performed by non-citizens while healthy welfare recipients sit on your ass.  Tired of Ramen and welfare cheese?  Want a fancy cell phone?  A nice car?  Go out there and earn it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2013)

RB said:


> I get a kick out of the "in theory" and "ideology" folks. I fukn hate the MSM.
> 
> When does your theoretical ideology change??? What does it take to change your mind as to your affilitation??
> 
> ...



Ideologically I think that a solid healtchcare system will save our country money.


----------



## JHD (Oct 20, 2013)

The stats in that report were adjusted for COLA. Hawaii does have a very high cost of living, but also very high unemployment.  That report compared welfare funds to funds earned through employment in that state.  There are signs everywhere concerning the high level of pickpockets, and smash and grabs in vehicles, etc., and it is real problem.

And thank you for pointing out the receipt of govt money.  I did not mean to include all govt employees, etc.  As you probably surmised, I was specifically referring to welfare recipients.  And I am not including those on SSC, Medicare, etc.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 20, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's ludicrous because you're punishing someone for being poor or otherwise using assistance.  Whether someone is a welfare cheat or if they're simply down on their luck, you want to take away a constitutionally-protected right.  And what kind of welfare are we talking about?  I received a Pell Grant this year, and the state of California waived my tuition fees because I got great grades.  Between my EAS and the start of my GI bill benefits (a period of roughly four months) I was on unemployment.  Should I not be able to vote?  My Dad will be drawing Social Security and disability payments (non-VA).  Should he not vote either?  What about the approximately 50 million Americans currently covered by Medicare?  Those are all forms of welfare and the people covered by them would be excluded from voting.
> 
> You know why welfare spending went up during the first four years of Obama's presidency?  It could've had something to do with it coinciding with the recession, maybe.  This notion that people on the dole are simply going to vote for the guy that gives them more stuff is pretty simplistic.  You want to know an interesting thing that the 2010 census revealed?  That white, rural women are the single greatest group of welfare recipients in the country (for the life of me I cannot find the data, but I've posted it here before).  So that group voted mostly for Obama in the 2012 election, right?  Nope.  Check figure 1B http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-wilson/the-elephant-in-the-exit_b_2094354.html



I should have been more clear but my point is that people on long term, combined source (section-8, SNAP, unemployment, etc) welfare.

Among the Long Term Unemployed, 72% of the two-party support goes to Democrats. http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2011/12/poll/topline.pdf  Why do you think that is? Which party is it that continues to raise [total] welfare? Which has been trying to implement a drug testing program for benefits? How are we going to get that part of the budget square when we know that which ever party is seen as cutting the status quo is seen as uncaring, regardless of how much waste and abuse is present in the programs?   Your attempt at race baiting is ridiculous - here are the welfare statistics for 2013 from US Department of Health and Human Services showing the same number, within a percentage point, of whites and blacks on some form of welfare.   http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/ (these numbers even support @JHD in his point that welfare recipients can earn more money that a lot of paying jobs and in so doing creates a dependant state) or is you want it broken down further this CNN exit poll shows there is a 50% difference in who white women vs black women voted for.  Again I find it a bit silly that you would interject race into this...  From the same CNN poll you can see the disparity of voting records as it relates to income.  If you want that broken down by Red or Blue states that can be found here.  http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/red-state-rising.html

As to your comments on the economy, even now with unemployment dropping from 10% to 9.4% food stamp enrollment is still climbing (may have something to do with the USDA's recruitment efforts I mentioned earlier).  It has increased every single month under the Obama administration with 43.6 million people in the US on food stamps.  http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm  The increase in our nations welfare spending is one of the biggest reasons the 2011 annual budget deficits were near $1.5 trillion dollars.  In the 2011 budget Obama submitted to Congress, over $1.4 trillion is to be spent on Medicare and Medicaid, with Medicaid the fasting growing component.  Next to defense spending, health and human services is the largest component of discretionary spending in the that budget, at $83.5 billion dollars.  However housing is not that far behind, at $41.6 billion.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...4sZTJQdi8OeRfwirZ8H8QRPg&ust=1382362415752324

This model is not sustainable and with so many people on some or combined forms of welfare you aren't going to get meaningful reform so long as welfare can be used to buy votes which is what the Democratic party has been doing.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 20, 2013)

Lots of well-reasoned, well-researched (and cited) posts in this thread on all sides of this argument.  I'm learning a lot here.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 20, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I have no fundamental objection to welfare and other social handouts, if for no other reason it keeps large swathes of people from resorting to violent crime in order to feed themselves and their families...
> .



According to “An Assessment of Crime in Maryland Today,” Maryland State Conference of Branches, NAACP, February 1994, “Executive Summary,” p. 7" the conclusion is made that “the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today.” Research by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.

Something else to consider in the welfare debate is how to prevent further linkage.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> According to “An Assessment of Crime in Maryland Today,” Maryland State Conference of Branches, NAACP, February 1994, “Executive Summary,” p. 7" the conclusion is made that “the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today.” Research by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.
> 
> Something else to consider...



While it is off topic, the amount of variables that go into those increases in crimes is astronomical. Lots of things lead people into crime, being on welfare is a side effect of the other reasons.


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> According to “An Assessment of Crime in Maryland Today,” Maryland State Conference of Branches, NAACP, February 1994, “Executive Summary,” p. 7" the conclusion is made that “the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today.” Research by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.
> 
> Something else to consider in the welfare debate is how to prevent further linkage.



As a Maryland resident that lives within walking distance of a high-crime, low income Section 8 housing area, I 100% agree with the above.  Our neighborhood has seen an explosion of crime from vandalism to strong armed robberies (hoods transit our area and steal along the way...they have guns but I cannot legally).  It has been argued that higher value of food stamps increases fraud which provides ill gotten booty to criminals for...drugs, guns, and stuff.

http://www.wbaltv.com/Md-Ranks-2nd-...raud/-/9380084/8902690/-/pm9ugdz/-/index.html

I assume that poor diet, laziness, smoking, drinking, etc would trend towards higher healthcare needs...and more Dem'crat votes (MD is very blue with the Gov planning on a presidential run if Hillary will let him).


----------



## JHD (Oct 20, 2013)

lindy said:


> As a Maryland resident that lives within walking distance of a high-crime, low income Section 8 housing area, I 100% agree with the above.  Our neighborhood has seen an explosion of crime from vandalism to strong armed robberies (hoods transit our area and steal along the way...they have guns but I cannot legally).  It has been argued that higher value of food stamps increases fraud which provides ill gotten booty to criminals for...drugs, guns, and stuff.
> 
> http://www.wbaltv.com/Md-Ranks-2nd-...raud/-/9380084/8902690/-/pm9ugdz/-/index.html
> 
> I assume that poor diet, laziness, smoking, drinking, etc would trend towards higher healthcare needs...and more Dem'crat votes (MD is very blue with the Gov planning on a presidential run if Hillary will let him).




Spot on.  

And o'Malley is a very electable Dem countrywide.  Although I am not a Dem, he would make a better POTUS now than the current one after his term to date.


----------



## surgicalcric (Oct 20, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> While it is off topic, the amount of variables that go into those increases in crimes is astronomical. Lots of things lead people into crime, being on welfare is a side effect of the other reasons.



You are right about the amount of variables but according to the research it is quite substantial.  I dont have the paper here with me but will try to find the figures - it was well researched.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> You are right about the amount of variables but according to the research it is quite substantial.  I dont have the paper here with me but will try to find the figures - it was well researched.



No I understand that.


----------



## JHD (Oct 20, 2013)

Could be the case of too many idle hands.  Even rich kids do things when they have too much time on their hands and/or easy access to drugs.  Add to that a situation where all people see in their environment is violence/crime occurring and no consequences, the propensity to commit a felonious act is going to increase.  Just my .02 only.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 20, 2013)

Looks like Sebelius may show up after all.  But if she doesnt and attends some swank party the night before, that sort of blows her "Im too busy" excuse.  


> A top Democratic senator said Sunday that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius will testify before Congress about the problem-plagued ObamaCare website, amid a growing call for her to accept requests to testify.
> 
> “Ultimately, Secretary Sebelius will testify,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, told “Fox News Sunday.”
> 
> ...



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...elius-will-testify-on-obamacare-website-woes/

And perhaps we will actually hear something on the subject directly from POTUS tomorrow.  This should be interesting.  I wonder if he is going to give the general public a year's grace like he did for big business?  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/obamacare-website-issues_n_4131455.html



> Last week, President Barack Obama gathered some of his top advisers in the Oval Office to discuss the problem-plagued rollout of his health care legislation. He told his team the administration had to own up to the fact that there were no excuses for not having the health care website ready to operate on Day One.
> 
> The admonition from a frustrated president came amid the embarrassing start to sign-ups for the health care insurance exchanges. The president is expected to address the cascade of computer problems Monday during an event at the White House.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 21, 2013)

Hahhahahaa..  Et tu Oprah?  

http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/even-oprah-isnt-on-board-with-obamacare/



> The story of why Oprah has changed her tune and gone AWOL on ObamaCare goes well beyond mere gossip. It speaks volumes about the convergence of celebrity and politics under Obama and about a president who thinks nothing of using and then discarding his most loyal supporters.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 22, 2013)

I hope Earling has an employment back-up plan as well as an alternate healthcare plan for when they fire her.  Priceless.  Maybe she can plead that she is pregnant and has type 1 diabetes and she was ready to pass out....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ter_operator_says_no_one_likes_it_so_far.html



> At the top of his radio program today, Sean Hannity called in to an Obamacare call center. Hannity was able to get through to an operator after only several moments of waiting. He spoke to the operator for nearly 10 minutes about Obamacare, what her thoughts of it are and what kind of response she has received so far. The operator was very friendly and had no problem answering all of Hannity's questions.


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 22, 2013)

Can you imagine if a new, private business launched this way?   They'd be done.   If this happened to an existing business in private industry those responsible would not have jobs.  That is a fact.  Off the top of my head, while I'm sure there are some examples, I cannot think of a private industry launch of this scale that has failed this badly.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2013)

Jon Stewart did a pretty good segment on how bad this is last night. I am on my phone and can't post a link, but it is hilarious.


----------



## JHD (Oct 22, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Jon Stewart did a pretty good segment on how bad this is last night. I am on my phone and can't post a link, but it is hilarious.



Here you go Cback...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...tique-is-as-ruthlessly-honest-as-it-is-funny/


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2013)

JHD said:


> Here you go Cback...
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...tique-is-as-ruthlessly-honest-as-it-is-funny/



Thanks.


----------



## compforce (Oct 23, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Can you imagine if a new, private business launched this way?   They'd be done.   If this happened to an existing business in private industry those responsible would not have jobs.  That is a fact.  Off the top of my head, while I'm sure there are some examples, I cannot think of a private industry launch of this scale that has failed this badly.


 
Duke Nukem Forever  (everyone on the team was fired, replaced and then those were fired, replaced, wash rinse repeat...for 15 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever

On the other subtopics:

The failure on the technology end is horrific.  They can bring in all of the experts they want in the "tech surge" and the end result is going to be a recommendation to rewrite/re-architect the whole thing.  Politicians will bring pressure to bear to "make it look like it works" and they will make the web site appear to work, but the stuff behind the curtain will probably never be completely fixed to work as intended.  Finally, they will just take compromise positions like "well, we really don't need to run a credit check" which will result in a rise in fraudulent payments along with overall difficulties, ala Europe, in getting health care at all.

Voting:  I'm a believer in Robert Heinlein's "Service means Citizenship" model.  If you want to have access to functions of the government, serve in some capacity.  It doesn't have to be military, it can be civil service.  It can be manning a desk as a receptionist for a government agency (federal, state or local, I don't care which).  Only after a period of mandatory service would a person be eligible for welfare or to vote or any other government program.  Social Security?  Make it go away over time.  You can get a much better return on investment yourself.  Medicare?  Same thing, if you invest the money that currently is paid into medicare, you'd actually be able to afford much better health care than what is provided by medicare.  I just don't get how people think that injecting a bunch of government employees as the middle man between your investment and your return is going to make you better off.

Welfare:  First things first.  Obama should never have pushed to have the work requirement changed the way he did, put it back.  Second, better eligibility checks coupled with aggressive policing and sentencing for fraud.  Reduce welfare and other assistance program payouts to place the total possible payout just above the poverty line.  I know a couple that are both medical doctors and who closed their clinic to go on government assistance because it pays better...  if you know how to work the system.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 23, 2013)

_*"Well, if we had 5 years to implement all this...."*_

Hey Kathleen, where was this revelation prior to the rollout and why is this now coming to light? 

Not to mention, this is only the tip of the iceberg for enrollment. What happens when providers start showing up to receive compensation for services provided? 

And how much for a website with "Ancient technology" subject to compromise of confidential info supplied by millions of Americans? Talk about a possible cash cow for unscrupulous hackers accessing a database built for an obscene price that was never really stress tested.  Where is the outrage not to mention accountability?


_*"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove that they are insured, but not everyone must prove that they are a citizen." 
*_
"Now add this:* "Many of those who refuse or are unable to prove that they are citizens, will receive free insurance, paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance, because they are citizens." 
*
The above (Which is a quote from Ben Stein) I believe pretty much frames this entire debacle to a ""T" 

I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm covered by mutual of Army, but good God, what else is waiting in the wings that's gonna pop up out of now where?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 23, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Not to mention, this is only the tip of the iceberg for enrollment. What happens when providers start showing up to receive compensation for services provided?
> 
> A?



Well providers will go through the insurance companies who provide insurance to the people who are enrolled through the ACA's website. There will be no reason for them to show up looking for compensation.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 23, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Well providers will go through the insurance companies who provide insurance to the people who are enrolled through the ACA's website. There will be no reason for them to show up looking for compensation.



Well, when the waitress shows up with the check after dinner, she doesn't care nor does the restaurant who the money comes from, just that the bill is paid. 

Same thing.


----------



## 0699 (Oct 23, 2013)

Centermass said:


> _*"Well, if we had 5 years to implement all this...."*_
> 
> Hey Kathleen, where was this revelation prior to the rollout and why is this now coming to light?


 
There's an old saying; I think it orignated with civil engineers...

_"You can have it fast, cheap, and well-made.  Pick two."_


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 23, 2013)

Centermass said:


> Well, when the waitress shows up with the check after dinner, she doesn't care nor does the restaurant who the money comes from, just that the bill is paid.
> 
> Same thing.



What?

It isn't the same thing. It's not like people having insurance is going to make doctors be like, "well now the government is like a co-signer for these people I better go after the govt."  

And prior to the ACA and after it, we will still foot the bill when someone goes to the ER and racks up major bills while uninsured, because those people end up with Medicare and disability and go bankrupt from their bills.


----------



## JHD (Oct 23, 2013)

I also wonder about those that get insurance but have such high deductibles they can't afford to get sick.  Will be interesting as an observer only to see what those people elect to do.  I feel for them.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 23, 2013)

And Sebelius throws herself under the bus with the old "The President didnt know" sob story.  Please.   The hallmark of his Presidency, bearing his name and he doesnt know anything? 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/politics/obamacare-sebelius-interview/index.html



> In an exclusive interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked when the President first learned about the considerable issues with the Obamacare website. Sebelius responded that it was in "the first couple of days" after the site went live October 1.
> 
> "But not before that?" Gupta followed up.
> 
> To which Sebelius replied, "No, sir."


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2013)

JHD said:


> Here you go Cback...
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...tique-is-as-ruthlessly-honest-as-it-is-funny/



Anyone able to find this on YouTube? There are several links to Stewarts show but THIS episode was taken offline citing copy write? I think something's up!


----------



## JHD (Oct 23, 2013)

Watch quick before this one is yanked.  This link has a lot of it, if not all.

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/jo...-website-the-glitches-and-speech-video-71185/


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 23, 2013)

lindy said:


> Anyone able to find this on YouTube? There are several links to Stewarts show but THIS episode was taken offline citing copy write? I think something's up!


http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/22/jon-stewart-slams-obamacare-rollout-democrats-cant-spin-this-turd/


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 23, 2013)

@lindy nope, cant see it on youtube but Yahoo has it on  their story here. 
http://news.yahoo.com/jon-stewart-rips-president-obamacare-website-over-glitches-144313047.html


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 23, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> And Sebelius throws herself under the bus with the old "The President didnt know" sob story.  Please.   The hallmark of his Presidency, bearing his name and he doesnt know anything?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/politics/obamacare-sebelius-interview/index.html


To be fair, the "Obamacare" moniker was put there by pundits, not the President.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 23, 2013)

Even "he" calls it Obamacare. Note about 19 seconds in.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 23, 2013)

Edit: Nevermind.  Irrelevant.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 23, 2013)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/postt...9180aa-f543-11e1-86a5-1f5431d87dfd_video.html

Even on Organizing for Action.
http://l.barackobama.com/i-like-obamacare/


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 23, 2013)

Pretty much every online news source has a head line pointing out the failure of Healthcare.gov at the moment.  This one from CBSnews.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/



> CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance.
> 
> The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning."



(Isnt that called a bait and switch )

http://www.nbcnews.com/



> *Come back in two weeks: Even Obamacare experts can't tame glitchy website*


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet...ed-fixing-obamacares-broken/story?id=20659016



> Meet Jeff Zients: The Man Charged With Fixing Obamacare's Broken Site



I can quote on and on..but the way I see it if big business has been given a year grace period why cant individuals get the same consideration in light of the fact this is so broken.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> To be fair, the "Obamacare" moniker was put there by pundits, not the President.



Correct because "greatest redistribution of wealth in history" and "largest tax (penalty) increase on Americans" sound mean despite being completely accurate.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 24, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> What?
> 
> It isn't the same thing. It's not like people having insurance is going to make doctors be like, "well now the government is like a co-signer for these people I better go after the govt."
> 
> And prior to the ACA and after it, we will still foot the bill when someone goes to the ER and racks up major bills while uninsured, because those people end up with Medicare and disability and go bankrupt from their bills.



You completely missed my point. My point is it's about oversight, compliance and numerous other things too numerous to mention INCLUDING DISBURSEMENT OF GOVERNMENT REVENUE (Yeah, we've got to pass it to know what's in it......sigh) much like medicare, only now, you've just invited million upon millions more into a new system that not only includes an administrative organization made up of rookies dealing with newly implemented legislation, but will have to rely on a COMPUTER DATABASE in order to do so.  

It hasn't even gotten that far yet. And when it does, I for one predict headaches of mammoth proportions based on what we've seen so far.  

Rather than resort to stick figures and menial diagrams, here's an example: 


_Recently issued guidance clarifies the application of certain provisions under the *Affordable Care Act *(*ACA*) to health reimbursement arrangements, employer payment plans, health flexible spending arrangements and employee assistance programs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes certain market reforms that apply to group health plans.  These market reforms include a prohibition on annual limits on the plan’s essential health benefits (annual dollar limit prohibition), and the requirement for non-grandfathered plans to provide certain preventive care services without imposing cost-sharing requirements on those services (preventive services requirements).  On September 13, 2013, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Labor released guidance (Guidance) clarifying the application of these market reforms to (1) health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), including HRAs integrated with a group health plan; (2) employer payment plans; (3) health flexible spending arrangements (Health FSAs); and (4) employee assistance programs (EAPs).  The Guidance applies for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, and may be applied for all prior periods. 

HRAs are funded solely by an employer and are designed to reimburse the employee and his or her eligible dependents’ medical expenses.  An HRA can be (but is not required to be) provided alongside another type of coverage.

In the case of a stand-alone HRA (one that is not integrated with another type of coverage), the Guidance provides that an HRA is a group health plan subject to the annual dollar limit prohibition and the preventive services requirements.  Since HRA benefits are limited to the dollars within the HRA, and HRAs do not provide preventive care services without cost-sharing in all instances, a stand-alone HRA cannot comply with the annual dollar limit prohibition or preventive services requirements as required by the ACA.  In addition, the Guidance confirms that for purposes of satisfying the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirements, stand-alone HRAs cannot be integrated with individual market coverage purchased using the HRA.  Thus, a stand-alone HRA for active employees will fail to meet the ACA requirements.  A retiree-only HRA can exist as a stand-alone HRA.

If an HRA is integrated with another type of coverage as part of a group health plan, and the other coverage alone complies with the preventive services requirements, the combined HRA and coverage satisfies the preventive services requirements, regardless of the fact that the HRA alone does not satisfy the requirement.  However, if an HRA is integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan, and the other coverage alone complies with the annual dollar limit prohibition, the two do not necessarily satisfy the annual dollar limit prohibition.

The Guidance does, however, provide rules for determining when an HRA can be integrated with other coverage as part of a group health plan for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition.  An HRA will be integrated with other group health plan coverage for this purpose if the HRA meets the Minimum Value Not Required Integration Method or the Minimum Value Required Integration Method.  The Guidance does specify that the HRA and the coverage with which it is integrated are not required to share the same plan sponsor or governing documents, or to file a single Form 5500, in order to comply with either integration method. 

Under the Minimum Value Not Required Integration Method, an HRA is integrated for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition if the following conditions are satisfied. The employer offers a group health plan in addition to the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits; The employer offers a group health plan in addition to the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits;The employer offers a group health plan in addition to the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits;

The employee receiving the HRA is actually enrolled in any group health plan other than the HRA that does not consist solely of excepted benefits (non-HRA coverage);

The HRA is available only to employees enrolled in non-HRA coverage, regardless of whether the employer sponsors the non-HRA coverage;The HRA is limited to reimbursement of co-payments, co-insurance, deductibles and premiums under the non-HRA coverage, as well as medical care that is not essential health benefits; 

Under the HRA terms, an employee may permanently opt out and waive future reimbursements from the HRA at least annually, and upon termination of employment either the remaining amounts in the HRA are forfeited, or the employee may permanently opt out of and waive future reimbursements from the HRA.

Under the Minimum Value Required Integration Method, an HRA is integrated for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition if the following conditions are satisfied:

The employer offers a group health plan that provides “minimum value” under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 36B(c)(2)(C)(ii);

The employee receiving the HRA is actually enrolled in any group health plan that provides such minimum value (non-HRA MV coverage); 

The HRA is available only to employees enrolled in non-HRA MV coverage, regardless of whether the employer sponsors the non-HRA MV coverage; and 

Under the HRA terms, an employee may permanently opt-out and waive future reimbursements from the HRA at least annually, and upon termination of employment either the remaining amounts in the HRA are forfeited or the employee may permanently opt-out of and waive future reimbursements from the HRA.

Amounts newly made available under an HRA for a plan year are able to count towards determining whether the coverage meets the affordability or minimum value requirements in the following circumstances:

If an employer offers an employee both a primary eligible employer-sponsored plan and an HRA that would be integrated with the primary plan, and the employee enrolls in the plan, the HRA amounts newly made available for the current plan year may be considered in determining whether the arrangement satisfies either the affordability requirement or the minimum value requirement, but not both; 

Newly made available HRA amounts, for the current plan year, which can only be used by the employee to reduce cost-sharing for covered medical expenses under the primary employer-sponsored plan, may be considered for meeting the minimum value requirement; and

Newly made available HRA amounts, for the current plan year, which an employee may use to pay premiums or to pay both premiums and cost-sharing under the primary employer-sponsored plan, may be considered for meeting the affordability requirement.

Amounts newly made available under an HRA for a plan year do not count towards determining whether the coverage meets the affordability or minimum value requirements in the following circumstances:

HRAs integrated with a plan offered by another employer for purposes of the annual dollar limit prohibition or the preventive services requirements will not count toward the affordability or minimum value requirement of the plan offered by the other employer; and

If an employer offers an HRA on the condition that the employee does not enroll in non-HRA coverage offered by the employer and instead enrolls in non-HRA coverage from a different source, the HRA does not count in determining whether the employer’s non-HRA coverage satisfies either the affordability or minimum value requirement.

The Guidance clarifies that an employee may not purchase Exchange coverage through an employer’s Code Section 125 plan.

Similar to an HRA, a stand-alone health FSA will not meet the annual dollar limit prohibition or preventive services requirements as required by the ACA.  An employer may still offer a health FSA as long as the health FSA covers excepted benefits.

The Guidance clarifies that an employer may not reimburse an employee for some or all of the employee’s Exchange premiums, or purchase Exchange-based coverage for an employee on a tax-favorable basis.

The Guidance provides that benefits offered under an EAP are considered excepted benefits not subject to the ACA market reforms, as long as the EAP does not provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment.  Until rulemaking is finalized, plan sponsors are allowed to use a reasonable good-faith interpretation of whether an EAP provides significant medical care or treatment benefits. 

Employers sponsoring HRAs, employer payment plans or similar arrangements, Health FSAs or EAPs should review the structure of these benefits to ensure compliance with the ACA, applying the Guidance.  Sponsors of HRAs also should determine whether the HRA can be integrated with another group health plan for purposes of compliance with the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirements. 

Excise taxes and self-reporting requirements under Section 4980D of the Code are applicable for failure to comply with the ACA market reforms, including the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirements._

When all else fails, just hit _this 

_


Yeah, that'll take care of it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




_
_


----------



## Gypsy (Oct 24, 2013)

I wanted to let you know that earlier today I received my "Obamacare enrollment packet” from the White House.
It contained:

· An aspirin and a band-aid
· An 'Obama Hope & Change' bumper sticker
· A 'Bush's Fault' yard sign
· A 'Blame Republicans first, then anybody and everybody' poster
· A 'Tax the Rich' banner
· An application for unemployment and a free cellphone
· An application for food stamps
· A prayer rug
· A letter assigning my debt to my grandchildren
· And lastly, a coupon for a machine that blows smoke up my a**.
Everything was made in China and all directions were in Spanish.
Keep an eye out. Yours should be arriving soon.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 24, 2013)

Now even some Democrats are waking up to smell the coffee.  

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jeanne-shaheen-calls-for-open-enrollment-extension-98700.html



> Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is calling on the White House to extend Obamacare’s open enrollment period amid continued frustration with the troubled HealthCare.gov.
> 
> “The difficulty that people in New Hampshire and in other states that are relying on the federally facilitated marketplaces are experiencing is incredibly frustrating and disappointing,” Shaheen wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama. “For over three years, we have been waiting for the creation of the health insurance exchanges, which now in their fourth week of existence, are riddled with problems.”





> She is also asking the administration to clarify whether Americans will get fined for not getting insurance when the site is not working properly.
> 
> The move makes Shaheen, of New Hampshire, the first Senate Democrat to come out for extending the open enrollment period, which is scheduled to end on March 31.



http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/24/democrats-ask-to-delay-obamacare-deadline



> Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., agreed, issuing a statement late Wednesday that said: "I believe, given the technical issues, it makes sense to extend the time for people to sign up."
> 
> Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, also released a statement calling for new deadlines. "I have repeatedly said this law is not perfect and have proposed changes to make it work for Alaska families and small businesses," he wrote. "Given the recent website issues, I also support extending open enrollment season. I want to work with the administration to ensure that individuals are not unfairly penalized if technical issues with the website continue."
> 
> Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., also spoke in support of Shaheen, Fox News reported, and on the House floor, Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., called delaying the individual mandate "the only practical thing to do."





> Other Democrats, like Rep. Rick Nolan, D.-Minn., and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., called on the administration to find and fire the people responsible for the ACA's glitch-filled rollout. And a spokesman for Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., told NBC News that the senator was already drafting a bill to delay the Affordable Care Act's controversial individual mandate by a year.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 24, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Now even some Democrats are waking up to smell the coffee.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/jeanne-shaheen-calls-for-open-enrollment-extension-98700.html
> 
> ...


Let me guess how many are up for re-election next year.

I thought they were against the Republican, oops, TEA Party attempt to delay ACA?


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 24, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I hope Earling has an employment back-up plan as well as an alternate healthcare plan for when they fire her.  Priceless.  Maybe she can plead that she is pregnant and has type 1 diabetes and she was ready to pass out....
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ter_operator_says_no_one_likes_it_so_far.html



Well, that didnt take long.

Hope, Change and *Transparency.*


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...her_a_years_salary.html#.Uml_E9uD2eU.facebook



> On the top of Thursday's broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity revealed Erling Davis, the Obamacare operator he called early in his Monday show, got fired. Hannity quizzed her on how well the law is being received by applicants and she revealed no one liked it. Hannity had Davis on his show today and revealed he will give her a year's salary of $26,000 and help her find a new job.
> 
> SEAN HANNITY: Something happened between the time we made that call to you, and now, what happened?
> 
> ...


----------



## CDG (Oct 24, 2013)

Watching Frank Pallone spew his bullshit today was a very frustrating experience.  To say that the problems with the website are irrelevant and that people should just call the phone number or go to an insurance agent for coverage is ridiculous.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 24, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Well, that didnt take long.
> 
> Hope, Change and *Transparency.*
> 
> ...



Not surprising, she probably wasn't authorized to comment.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 24, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Not surprising, she probably wasn't authorized to comment.


Apparently, that was not told to her until they fired her.   At least Hannity is taking care of her.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 24, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Apparently, that was not told to her until they fired her.   At least Hannity is taking care of her.


Hannity give her a job?
or just useless drivel?

He's a crappy host.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 24, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Hannity give her a job?
> or just useless drivel?
> 
> He's a crappy host.


From the link.


> Hannity had Davis on his show today and revealed he will give her a year's salary of $26,000 and help her find a new job.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Oct 25, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Apparently, that was not told to her until they fired her.   At least Hannity is taking care of her.


 I'll prolly get the smack down for this but by telling the truth she is eligible for:

1. EBT
2. Free cellphone
3. Omamacare paid for by someone else
4. Food stamps

and $26K a year.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 25, 2013)

RB said:


> I'll prolly get the smack down for this but by telling the truth she is eligible for:
> 
> 1. EBT
> 2. Free cellphone
> ...



On 26K a year salary she was probably eligible for those things anyways, espesxially if she is a single parent. 
I don't know about the phone though.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Oct 25, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> On 26K a year salary she was probably eligible for those things anyways, espesxially if she is a single parent.
> I don't know about the phone though.


 ??? you're missing the point. The 26K is a gift job from Hannity because of her opinion of obamafiasco, not the other way around. She was emplyed BEFORE she got fired by the gubmint. Who knows what she made annually.

All you have to do for a free cellphone is apply, sometimes 3 or 4 times / phones later. As chops would say: LINKIE


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Oct 25, 2013)

As a FYI you can be too poor to have eligibility for insurance plans under the marketplace and make too much money to qualify for medicaid.  

As received on a notice of someone I know: 
Based on your application, you don’t qualify to purchase health coverage through the Marketplace. In addition, you don’t qualify for a tax credit, cost-sharing reductions, KanCare, or {CHIPProgramName}.You still might be able to get health care at a lower cost. The health care law has expanded funding to community health centers, which provide primary care for millions of Americans. These centers provide services on a sliding scale based on your income. Learn more about getting care at a community health center on HealthCare.gov.

Nice.  Go to a community health center.  No affordable care for you!  This person has two children and a full time job... and just got the middle finger from Obamacare.

Aren't these the folks that this is supposed to help?

And yes, I do realize that the states need to expand their medicaid coverage to compensate for this gap and that many states refused to do so... the law should NOT have been written in such a manner that would allow for this gap and should have ensured that ALL can receive affordable coverage and written the measure down to the existing medicaid levels at the time of enactment.


----------



## comrade-z (Oct 25, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/u...ractor-named-to-fix-health-web-site.html?_r=0



> In an abrupt shift, the Obama administration on Friday named a “general contractor” to fix the troubled Web site of the federal health insurance marketplace, and said the repairs would be completed by the end of next month.



A month, eh?  Let's see about that....


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 25, 2013)

comrade-z said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/u...ractor-named-to-fix-health-web-site.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> A month, eh?  Let's see about that....


No fucking way, not with 5,000,000 lines of code to examine.

That's OK, just another black eye for Harry Reid.


----------



## JHD (Oct 25, 2013)

Just like the original cost being underestimated, so is the time to fix, I am sure.  It will be interesting to see what the original estimates of ongoing maintenance balloon up to, as well.  Disaster...


----------



## compforce (Oct 25, 2013)

nah, they are just going to disable all of the back end integration, ballpark all the costs and do the very very minimum.  They'll hide any errors so that they can continue to say it works while the programmers work feverishly in the background to make it actually work properly some time in the next year or three.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 25, 2013)

compforce said:


> nah, they are just going to disable all of the back end integration, ballpark all the costs and do the very very minimum.  They'll hide any errors so that they can continue to say it works while the programmers work feverishly in the background to make it actually work properly some time in the next year or three.


Funny thing, single payer would be just as fucked up as this page is, but they are data mining all the folks who register for the page.


----------



## Brill (Oct 25, 2013)

Thank God SS isn't run by USG contractors!


----------



## AWP (Oct 25, 2013)

lindy said:


> Thank God SS isn't run by USG contractors!


 
Our contractors are much worse than that....


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 25, 2013)




----------



## Chopstick (Oct 26, 2013)

Et tu Harry Reid? 
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53380078



> "As far as I'm concerned there is no excuse for that," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told Las Vegas radio station KNPR. "I think the administration should have known how difficult it was going to be to have 35 million or 40 million people to suddenly hook up to a place to go on the Internet."


----------



## tova (Oct 26, 2013)

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. He populated the earth with broccoli, cauliflower, spinach and green and yellow vegetables of all kinds, so Man and Woman would live long and healthy lives.

Then, using God’s great gifts, Satan created Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream and Krispy Cream Donuts. And Satan said, “You want chocolate with that?” And Man said, “Yes!” and Woman said,” and as long as you’re at it, add some sprinkles.” And they gained 10 pounds. And Satan smiled.

And God created the healthful yogurt that Woman might keep the figure that Man found so fair. And Satan brought forth white flour from the wheat, and sugar from the cane and combined them. And Woman went from size 6 to size 14.

So God said, “Try my fresh green salad.” And Satan presented Thousand –Island Dressing, buttery croutons and garlic toast on the side. And Man and Woman unfastened their belts following the repast.

Then God said, “I have sent you heart healthy vegetables and olive oil in which to cook them.” And Satan brought forth deep fried fish and chicken-fried steak so big it needed its own platter. And Man gained more weight and his cholesterol went through the roof. God then created a light fluffy white cake, and named it “Angel Food Cake” and said it is good. Satan then created chocolate cake and named it “Devils Food.”

God then brought forth running shoes so that His children might lose those extra pounds. And Satan gave cable TV with a remote control so Man would not have to toil changing channels. And Man and Woman laughed and cried before the flickering blue light and gained more pounds.

Then God brought forth the potato, naturally low in fat and brimming with nutrition. And Satan peeled off the healthful skin and sliced the starchy center into chips and deep fried them. And Man gained more pounds.

God then gave lean beef so that Man might consume fewer calories and still satisfy his appetite. And Satan created McDonald’s and its 99-cent double cheeseburger. Then said, ”You want fries with that?” And Man replied, “Yes! And super size them!” And Satan said, “It is good.” And Man went into cardiac arrest.

God sighed and created quadruple bypass surgery.

Then Satan created the Obama Health Care System.

Amen.


----------



## Brill (Oct 27, 2013)

Finally a road map for Obamacare!  Follow the yellow brick road!


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 27, 2013)

@lindy that made me dizzy!  Is that a covered symptom?


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 27, 2013)

SNL serves up Healthcare.gov again. 






And Senator Barasso gets his digs in.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/27/sen-barrasso-sebelius-now-laughing-stock-america/



> Sen. John Barrasso on Sunday added to his criticism of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ handling of the ObamaCare website, saying she is now the “laughingstock of America.”


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 28, 2013)

What is this?  MSNBC throwing down on Obamacare??

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...illions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance



> 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.



So why then did POTUS so famously keep saying "if you like your health insurance you can keep it"?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 28, 2013)

Friend of mine was paying $900 for his plan, same plan under TrashCare costs 1800 a month. Fannnnntastic for him.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 28, 2013)

Ranger Psych said:


> Friend of mine was paying $900 for his plan, same plan under TrashCare costs 1800 a month. Fannnnntastic for him.


Do you happen to know what will be the difference in his deductibles?  Some of those are absolutely shocking.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Do you happen to know what will be the difference in his deductibles?  Some of those are absolutely shocking.


Those probably doubled too.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 29, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Do you happen to know what will be the difference in his deductibles?  Some of those are absolutely shocking.



"same 80/20 coverage, after 1500 deductible, all the other "grades" , silver, bronze, are way less coverage and more money than what I pay now...."

From him. We've got tricare so we don't have to deal with it, but it's still bullshit.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 30, 2013)

More Blatant lies from the mouth of POTUS.   Where are you calling with that cell phone?  Jupiter?


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 31, 2013)

New York Magazine throws down.  The thing that bothers me is how many times POTUS preached this mantra.  And who the hell is he to tell us what we can and cant keep?  Those of us that work and pay for "our health care plan"?   Imagine this: "If you like your car, you can keep your car".  "If you like your house, you can keep your house".  Was the expected response "Oh thank you Mr. President".  Like we are some sort of subjects, not a free people?

http://videos.nymag.com/video/If-Yo...XWQ03RL&t="If You Like Your Plan..." Supercut


----------



## JHD (Oct 31, 2013)

Mitt Romney also speaks out on the debacle known as Obamacare...

Just on the heels of Obama being noted the second most powerful person in the world behind Putin.  Syria debacle anyone?  He is a lame duck very early on.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theov...itt-romney-health-care-boston-speech/3313955/


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 31, 2013)

More news regarding amateur hour.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nly-sends-callers-to-cupcake-shop-deli-in-ny/



> The New York Post reports the state health department erroneously listed the numbers as belonging to locations for the so-called ObamaCare “navigators,” who are supposed to help people sign up for health insurance.
> Instead, they are reaching businesses such as Brooklyn Cupcake. The cupcake shop’s owner, Carmen Rodriguez, tells the Post she has received over 100 calls from people seeking information on health insurance.
> “I have nothing to do with this,” Rodriguez said. “I run a very busy establishment, and I’m like, what is going on?”
> Rodriguez tells the Post her phone has been ringing off the hook and she is at wits’ end.
> “There has to be somebody who can help with ObamaCare; that’s their own mess,” she said.


----------



## DasBoot (Oct 31, 2013)

South Park went after it last night. It was one of the funniest enemies I've seen in a while. Needless to say, they shit all over the current situation.


----------



## Gypsy (Oct 31, 2013)

I was on the phone with a customer yesterday listening to him rant for over 20 minutes about his coverage.  Small business owner who made good but now has insurance premiums 3 times his original coverage having been dropped by his insurance co, he is trying to sign up for this abortion of a bill.  He also does stand up on the side, so it was rather entertaining at times.  This is FUBAR.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said:  _“We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it” ?_

A physician called into radio show and said: _"that's the definition of a stool sample"_

That pretty well sums it up.


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2013)

Interesting points on this EDITORIAL:



> The individual and small group markets are made up largely of healthy people who don’t use a lot of services. The administration needs at least 2 million healthy people who don’t use a lot of services to join the exchanges in order to subsidize coverage for the poor and the sick. * If they don’t join, the risk pool gets worse, prices go up, eventually insurers will flee the exchanges — and the whole thing collapses.*
> 
> While the individual mandate is supposed to coerce uninsured healthy people without insurance to join the exchanges, the problem is that the penalties are too weak — just $95 in the first year. Why would a healthy person who does not think they need insurance pay $55 a month (or $660 a year) for a $6,000-deductible plan when they could just pay a $95 penalty instead?
> 
> So the administration needed some way to force currently insured healthy people into the exchanges. How serendipitous, then, that millions of mostly healthy people are suddenly seeing their health plans cancelled. If they cannot afford the skyrocketing prices to keep similar coverage, they have no choice but to join the exchanges. The result? A massive involuntary transfer of Americans out of private health insurance they were happy with into Obamacare plans.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html?tid=pm_pop


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 31, 2013)

Another little wrinkle.  Who exactly is going to participate in your Obamacare exchange plan.  Will your doctor/hospital accept the plan you have and/or will you have additional out of pocket charges in order to utilize the caregivers you prefer? 
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare



> Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.




http://nypost.com/2013/10/17/hospitals-reject-six-obamacare-plans/



> ObamaCare was supposed to offer more choices — but New Yorkers shopping for medical coverage stand to be shut out of two of the city’s most prestigious hospitals.
> 
> Only three of the nine plans being offered on the New York State Health Exchange cover bills at NYU and New York-Presbyterian medical centers, The Post has learned.
> 
> Those who opt for the other six plans will either have to go elsewhere or pay steep out-of-pocket costs, officials said.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Another little wrinkle.  Who exactly is going to participate in your Obamacare exchange plan.  Will your doctor/hospital accept the plan you have and/or will you have additional out of pocket charges in order to utilize the caregivers you prefer?
> http://health.usnews.com/health-new...2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare
> 
> 
> ...



So this only applies to people who are losing their cheap extremely high deductible health insurance. People who were probably kept from going to those hospitals/couldn't afford to go previously anyways. It's not like a whole lot of people who can afford medical bills don't have insurance already through their employer.


I think it is funny this system we have. Where people can be indignant about losing the choices they didn't even really have to begin with...


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 31, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> So this only applies to people who are losing their cheap extremely high premium health insurance. People who were probably kept from going to those hospitals/couldn't afford to go previously anyways. It's not like a whole lot of people who can afford medical bills don't have insurance already through their employer.
> 
> 
> I think it is funny this system we have. Where people can be indignant about losing the choices they didn't even really have to begin with...


Ignore the promise of being able to keep what you have, then finding out they knew 80% would lose their coverage.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 1, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> So this only applies to people who are losing their cheap extremely high premium health insurance. People who were probably kept from going to those hospitals/couldn't afford to go previously anyways. It's not like a whole lot of people who can afford medical bills don't have insurance already through their employer.
> 
> 
> I think it is funny this system we have. Where people can be indignant about losing the choices they didn't even really have to begin with...



Your argument fails. 

2 words that will fuck anyone in that area:

Implied Consent.

Anyone who's been through State or National Registry training knows exactly what I am talking about. Unless a hospital is at capacity or otherwise shunting off patients elsewhere due to a multitude of situations... anyone who has an incident/accident (and WILL have a pricy bill due to) incurring loss of consciousness or obvious composure to make their own decisions at the scene of the call, will be transported to the nearest hospital UNLESS they're in need of facilities/care levels that are above and beyond what that nearest hospital can perform. These are high end hospitals. Top of the food chain. There isn't much "better levels" above them... so people WILL be going there in these situations.

This specifically means that exactly when they need insurance most due to having a theoretically serious medical emergency, they'll be going to the place where it's now forced to be hugely out of pocket, in lieu of a high deductible that while a gamble _(yet not so much of one for a physically healthy family/individual who takes care of themselves so they don't get sick/injured as a general rule)_ they could cover by disposing/leveraging personal property that they owned. 

Informed risk. My daughter, my wife, and myself all are healthy individuals through the gamut of hygiene both locational and physical, nutrition, and a gamut of other things we take into account. The only reason we even want/need insurance is specifically for catastrophic events. Not for day to day shit, because you can avoid getting sick and needing doctor's visits in the first place simply through environmental and personal controls.

It's the difference between being able to max out your credit card (that you specifically had an "oh shit" card for) and being able to just pay it off on your own time because some shit happened , versus having to sell your home/car/other large valuables immediately and most likely at a loss due to timeframe of payment required in order to be able to cover said bills. 

It's flat out retarded.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 1, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> So this only applies to people who are losing their cheap extremely high premium health insurance. People who were probably kept from going to those hospitals/couldn't afford to go previously anyways. It's not like a whole lot of people who can afford medical bills don't have insurance already through their employer.
> 
> ...



I personally know several people that had very good policies at what they considered to be fair prices losing their coverage.  Wait until the employer mandate kicks in next year.  This very same scenario is going to happen with the group policies offered by employers.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I personally know several people that had very good policies at what they considered to be fair prices losing their coverage.  Wait until the employer mandate kicks in next year.  This very same scenario is going to happen with the group policies offered by employers.



You personally know several people with low deductible plans that are losing them? That's surprising. As the ultimate goal of the ACA is to get people into plans with low deductibles. 

My point in my previous post was that if you had a low premium high deductible insurance you weren't going to NYU on the reg anyways. It's like being upset that while making payments on a pinto, you don't get to drive a Ferrari.

@Ranger Psych your point about implied consent makes zero sense as well. If someone is going to that level 1 trauma center chances are, they take this insurance. Further your example is absurd for a couple of other reasons, 1 if I am hurt so bad and have no insurance my bills would be so overwhelming the govt likely will be forced to come in and pay for them anyways. 2 who says that "catastrophic"insurance is taken wherever the accident takes place?  What if it isn't? You are now up the same shit creek without a paddle you are up in The ACA or without insurance. Some if these absurd loopholes we are finding out about are due to how fucking shady insurance companies are.

It does piss me off to no end that people are losing some benefits, but a cheap high deductible plan is rolling the dice no matter how you look at it. And it is part of the reason they are doing away with it. Not to sound like a beating drum, but some people are a fall on the basketball court or a slip on the stairs away from a lifetime of medical debt.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 1, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> You personally know several people with low deductible plans that are losing them? That's surprising. As the ultimate goal of the ACA is to get people into plans with low deductibles.
> 
> My point in my previous post was that if you had a low premium high deductible insurance you weren't going to NYU on the reg anyways. It's like being upset that while making payments on a pinto, you don't get to drive a Ferrari.
> 
> ...



Find someone who had an individual policy who's premium went down under ObamaCare, Find an individual whos deductible went down, and is paying the same rate.

In TX a 20-something male just saw his premium DOUBLE and his deductible TRIPLE.

Then explain how that is more affordable?

Do you have employer insurance?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 1, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Find someone who had an individual policy who's premium went down under ObamaCare, Find an individual whos deductible went down, and is paying the same rate.
> 
> In TX a 20-something male just saw his premium DOUBLE and his deductible TRIPLE.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying it is cheaper. I don't think healthcare/insurance is affordable at all, for almost any middle income family.

I have insurance through my wife's university, because she is on a fellowship she gets pretty good insurance, I pay 400 dollars a month to be on her low deductible plan, which is a significant portion of our monthly(GI bill for me+ fellowship stipend for her which is exactly the same as GI bill) you can add up what we make and what percentage of our income goes to health insurance/care. Health insurance is and has been expensive as fuck for a long time, nothing will change that except lowering the cost of care.


----------



## comrade-z (Nov 1, 2013)

Came across this as part of my morning reading. This does not address all of the issues being brought up, but it does address a few. The guy's credentials are pretty high up there, but it is an opinion piece. It is still worth the read even so, and I am probably not alone in wanting to see a study done on the issues the author brought up.

[url]http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/10/30-truth-about-obamacare-coverage-aaron[/URL]


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 1, 2013)

Take a look at LASIK.  It's an elective surgery.  Medicare doesn't cover it.  You can get it done for anywhere between $500 and $2000, depending on where you go (although the places hawking the $499 procedure probably have hidden fees).  The prices haven't fluctuated all that much.  Another one to look at it plastic surgery.  Medicare doesn't cover that, either (although there could be certain circumstances where it might).  Prices haven't skyrocketed in that market, either.  Now compare that to how much the cost of a wellness exam, gynecological exam, etc. has gone up over the years.  If it wasn't for the fact that corporations are in bed with politicians, I'd say let health care hit the free market. 

 I know that comparing the market for electronics and health care is apples and oranges, to say the least, but you don't see the price of new technology skyrocketing every year.  Something gets released, then it gets cheaper as time passes.  Why it works for electronics and not health care is beyond me.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 1, 2013)

Let's be clear on something.  There is a difference between cost of health _coverage (read: insurance) _and the cost of health _care (read: delivery of services).  _

With that distinction in mind, none of these quasi-single payer approaches (ie Obamacare or any similar proposal) do anything to address the delivery cost of heath care.  This is the real issue.   However, no one at the decision making level is really interested in having an honest conversation about the true drivers behind the increase in health care delivery.

Drivers include but are not limited to:

Consumers being insulated from the direct cost of care
Defensive care on the part of physicians
Technology that is expensive and often diagnostic in nature; only marginally improves the ability to treat disease/improve health
Government failure to define common data collection formats; inconsistent individual state-specific requirements
Supply of health care resources; region to region, urban to rural
And the largest contributor that goes unaddressed...demographics.  We have a rapidly aging population.  People are living longer and as a result utilizing more services
These are simply facts that need to be addressed in order to come up with effective solutions.   Simply having a government sponsored insurance system does not move the needle in any meaningful way and, as evidence indicates, likely exacerbates issues.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 1, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I'm not saying it is cheaper. I don't think healthcare/insurance is affordable at all, for almost any middle income family.
> 
> I have insurance through my wife's university, because she is on a fellowship she gets pretty good insurance, I pay 400 dollars a month to be on her low deductible plan, which is a significant portion of our monthly(GI bill for me+ fellowship stipend for her which is exactly the same as GI bill) you can add up what we make and what percentage of our income goes to health insurance/care. Health insurance is and has been expensive as fuck for a long time, *nothing will change that except lowering the cost of care*.



Which brings me back to my point, how do you say a 100-300% increase is a lowering of costs?

The President spent years telling us our costs would go down, now documents are surfacing saying the administration minions knew 30-80% of the people would LOSE their coverage, and have to buy a higher priced policy.

Come back in 18 months and tell us what your premium is after the employer mandate goes into effect.

You want a lower cost, tort reform, that lowers the cost of Malpractice Insurance.


----------



## Gypsy (Nov 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I personally know several people that had very good policies at what they considered to be fair prices losing their coverage.  Wait until the employer mandate kicks in next year.  This very same scenario is going to happen with the group policies offered by employers.


 
My employer absorbed over 100K in costs to implement this stupid fucking plan's requirements.  "*This year* there are no changes to individual contributions"  Family coverage contributions have  gone up.  I expect many companies to cancel employee insurance coverage, possibly to include my own.



cback0220 said:


> You personally know several people with low deductible plans that are losing them? That's surprising. As the ultimate goal of the ACA is to get people into plans with low deductibles.


 
I personally know of 3 people so far.  And 5 people whose company has cancelled employee coverage.  It is not surprising at all, I believe the ultimate goal is a single payer system.  If they can collapse health care coverage as we (used to?) know it, it will happen. 

There is a reason so many people travel to the US when they need the best health care possible.  I see that changing some day too.


----------



## compforce (Nov 1, 2013)

comrade-z said:


> Came across this as part of my morning reading. This does not address all of the issues being brought up, but it does address a few. The guy's credentials are pretty high up there, but it is an opinion piece. It is still worth the read even so, and I am probably not alone in wanting to see a study done on the issues the author brought up.
> 
> [url]http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/10/30-truth-about-obamacare-coverage-aaron[/URL]


http://www.brookings.edu/research/o...n=BrookingsFB1031&utm_content=BrookingsFB1031
 
Ummm, that is a very partisan piece.  Take a look at what the author states are the issues  Bear in mind that the insurance market is based on risk.  They figure the odds on what they will have to pay over the total population of a group and then the premiums represent the cost of paying that amount + profit.  For the record, the official statistics on the net profit (EBITDA) of insurers show a 3.4% profit.  As an industry, the insurance industry ranks 88th. [url]http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html  That's a blog post, but he links the original data.  If I only made 3.4% net profit, I'd be out of business today and working for someone else.

- Denying care for preexisting conditions, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently;
100% risk of paying for it.  These have to either be included or premiums have to incorporate the cost of treatment, which can't be done under current regulations.  Taking these conditions would represent a complete loss that would have to be defrayed by higher premiums to the rest of the policy holders (which is one reason why Obamacare will continue to see unreasonable premiums)


Charging higher premiums to women of child-bearing age than to men of the same age;
 The risk of a man having health care costs related to child bearing is pretty damned low compared to that of a woman.  The higher premiums reflect this.  If they level the premiums, then men like me are paying part of the premium for the risk of women having children.  The other way this can be handled inside the law is to raise the men's premiums to the same level as women, resulting in additional profit as there will be no likelihood of a payout.


Charging 65-year-olds rates that are as much six or eight times higher than they charge 25-year-olds;
   again, the risk of a 25 year old having medical issues is at least 6 to 8 times lower than a 65 year old.  The premiums should reflect this.  BTW, 65 year olds are under medicare, which has nothing to do with individual insurance rates.  The whole premise of Obamacare is that they are going to have to pay for health insurance specifically so that the money from the young and healthy end up paying the bill for the rest.


Cutting benefits entirely when annual or lifetime treatment costs exceed specified amounts;
This one is simple, the insurance company has to have a way to say what their maximum exposure is.  If they don't have a maximum exposure, then they have to raise premiums to accommodate lifetime costs. If a person wants to accept the risk of an illness costing more than the cap, they should pay less money.  Let's face it, if I have a condition that costs more than $50M (my current cap) to treat, I have other things to worry about.


Omitting coverage of particular services that are basic and important, such as rehabilitation after serious injury; and
Who decides which services are basic or important?  They (Obamacare) are forcing me to carry insurance that covers my maternity care, although the odds of me ever having a baby are exactly 0


Cancelling coverage when a customer presented very large bills and was expected to have very high bills in the future.
Again, higher risk to the company, higher premiums or a requirement to raise premiums across the board to pay for this person's treatments. - For the record, I don't think they should be able to cancel coverage after the fact.

Blizzard hit it right on the head.  Fix the problems with services.  It's not the coverage that is broken.[/URL]


----------



## comrade-z (Nov 1, 2013)

I agree with you that not all the questions/points the author brought up are on the mark - the main thing I came away with it was wondering about the statistics of who has to now switch their coverage, broken down by the reasons instigating the switch. Never thought of it as comprehensive or non-partisan - as stated when I posted it, its an opinion piece after all. Just figured I would post it because well, some parts were interesting, the author's idea was pretty cleanly displayed (aesthetic issue, but still nice), and it was related to what was being said here.


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Let's be clear on something.  There is a difference between cost of health _coverage (read: insurance) _and the cost of health _care (read: delivery of services)..._Simply having a government sponsored insurance system does not move the needle in any meaningful way and, as evidence indicates, likely exacerbates issues.



When in doubt, YOUTUBE!











It's all good!


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 2, 2013)

Senator Brian Kelsey's gift to Sebelius.  She does not look amused.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 2, 2013)

The Healthcare.gov Twitter feed is a sad timeline of a boatload of failure.
https://twitter.com/HealthCareGov



> *Tweets All / No replies *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 2, 2013)

I was just looking at the various tallies on the internet of what the Healthcare.gov website alone has cost thus far.  Figures vary from 350 million dollars to 500 million dollars. As I type this the US Census clock is at 316,995,902.  If you think about it, the government could have skipped the website, made each of us a millionaire and still have money left over.  

http://www.census.gov/popclock/


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 2, 2013)

Sorry if this is a repost...but SNL nailed it.......

*BOOM*

Can't embedd for some reason......


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I was just looking at the various tallies on the internet of what the Healthcare.gov website alone has cost thus far.  Figures vary from 350 million dollars to 500 million dollars. As I type this the US Census clock is at 316,995,902.  If you think about it, the government could have skipped the website, made each of us a millionaire and still have money left over.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/popclock/



Lol math not your strong suit? Maybe they could have given each of us a dollar or whatever 350M/316M is I think is is a long way from making us all millionaires.

ETA: it's $1.10 cents.


----------



## comrade-z (Nov 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I was just looking at the various tallies on the internet of what the Healthcare.gov website alone has cost thus far.  Figures vary from 350 million dollars to 500 million dollars. As I type this the US Census clock is at 316,995,902.  If you think about it, the government could have skipped the website, made each of us a millionaire and still have money left over.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/popclock/



That would take some extremely favorable return rates on investment.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 3, 2013)

Shouldnt drink Chianti and SS!    Or maybe if our Govt would stop throwing money at say Pakistan that might help too...

Anyway this pretty much illustrates what is happening to some of my friends right now.  And I am sure this is will be the rest of us when the employer mandate kicks in. 
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/healt...n_ref_map={"10151752643983517":"facebook_cb"}



> Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”





> Distrust of Obamacare and the people running it has been compounded by the malfunctioning web site and the sheer complexity of the law and its many requirements. Jeanne Patterson of Drexel Hill, Pa., will be losing coverage at the end of the year, and her insurance carrier told her she must choose another plan by Nov. 20 or she won’t be able to get coverage for 2014. The White House, meanwhile, has said it may take until Nov. 30 to fix the crash-prone federal web site. The ACA gives people who choose a plan through an exchange until Dec. 15 to purchase coverage that would take effect Jan. 1, but like many others, Patterson hasn’t been able to navigate the buggy site to find out what her options are.
> 
> Patterson, a 58-year-old unemployed insurance broker, pays $500 a month for insurance now, plus about $100 in co-pays for three brand-name medications used to treat chronic migraines. She might qualify for subsidies under the exchange that would help lower her premiums, but she worries that her out-of-pocket costs for drugs will skyrocket. “I had a really good plan,” she says. “My main problem now is uncertainty. It has me sick. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have health care and I don’t know what it will cost me.”






> Obama and his supporters have characterized many people who buy individual insurance policies as dupes who don’t realize they’re paying exorbitant prices for an inferior product. In his recent speech, for instance, Obama described such coverage as “cut-rate plans” offered by “bad-apple insurers” that “don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.”
> 
> But many of the 5-percenters Obama is referring to see a cruel irony the president may not be aware of. “They canceled my insurance, then said, ‘Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you,’”says Nate Quarry, a 41-year-old former mixed martial arts fighter who lives outside of Portland, Ore., and whose insurance will expire at year-end. Quarry was happy with the $650-a-month plan that covered him and his daughter. He doesn’t qualify for subsidies, so he’s been looking for a new individual policy similar to the one he’s losing.
> 
> So far, the insurance companies he’s called and emailed don’t seem interested in covering him. “I feel like I’m standing on a used car lot saying I want to buy a car, and nobody’s looking at me,” Quarry says. “Is this really happening?” Once the dust settles from the turbulent Obamacare launch, maybe an insurance company will step forward to take his money.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 3, 2013)

comrade-z said:


> That would take some extremely favorable return rates on investment.


It was a $634M no-bid contract, to a company whose VP was a classmate of Mrs Obama.  A company that had serious issues  when they tried to build a website for the Canadian Healthcare System.

Chicago Politics at it's best.


----------



## comrade-z (Nov 3, 2013)

SOWT said:


> It was a $634M no-bid contract, to a company whose VP was a classmate of Mrs Obama.  A company that had serious issues  when they tried to build a website for the Canadian Healthcare System.
> 
> Chicago Politics at it's best.



I meant more the $1 -> $1mil math, but yeah - Assuming they get to keep it (they probably will, unfortunately), CGI Federal will have found one hell of an "investment" indeed.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2013)

SOWT said:


> It was a $634M no-bid contract, to a company whose VP was a classmate of Mrs Obama.  A company that had serious issues  when they tried to build a website for the Canadian Healthcare System.
> 
> Chicago Politics at it's best.



Good points but he was referring to making a million dollars off of a dollar. lol


----------



## compforce (Nov 3, 2013)

and it starts...



> After multiple attempts to access the problem-plagued website, Hadley finally made it past the registration page Thursday. That’s when he was greeted with downloadable letters about eligibility — for two people in South Carolina. (Screenshot below.)


 
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02...sers-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/


----------



## comrade-z (Nov 3, 2013)

compforce said:


> and it starts...
> 
> http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02...sers-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/



I don't see this anywhere else yet, but assuming it is true, that is almost hilarious that that can happen....This is probably easy to fix, but the fact that it happened is a mind-blowing failure to comprehend and implement some of the most basic secure coding principles.

Simple fix: Chances are the databases all refer to a profile ID of some sort, since chances are they use a relational database, and a profile ID would be the simplest thing to both think of and implement as a primary key.  Chances are also that the database for these letters and other files contains the relevant profile ID somewhere in the record for each letter (if it isn't, then adding the relevant profile ID as a foreign key would be a very simple process).  Using the profile ID on files in the database to determine ownership of the files means all you have to do is compare the profile ID's of the file versus the profile to determine if the profile owns that file. About the only thing I assume is that they are using relational databases and not something weird like an XML database. 

In short, this is stupid.


----------



## comrade-z (Nov 3, 2013)

To explain why I am so worked up about this, an undergrad intro databases course in most computer science departments teach more than enough to avoid this.


----------



## Dame (Nov 3, 2013)

Favorite quote from Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI): “Amazon would never do this. ProFlowers would never do this. Kayak would never do this. This is completely an unacceptable level of security.”

ROFLMAO @ ProFlowers reference. 

Obamacare. Less secure than your tulip order.


----------



## Brill (Nov 3, 2013)

Perhaps this was intentional to distract from the real issue at hand: how bad the law REALLY is? :whatever:  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 3, 2013)

And this just the website to sign on for this fiasco..I can hardly wait for the implementation of the actual healthcare delivery part.  :wall:


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I can hardly wait for the implementation of the actual healthcare delivery part.  :wall:



What part is that?


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 3, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> What part is that?


The part where a bean counter is responsible for granting if you get your healthcare or not based upon the "guidelines".  Ive seen with my own eyes an appointment card for an individual in the UK healthcare system, for an MRI scan...three years from now.  This is in our future.


----------



## AWP (Nov 3, 2013)

I don't think it is alarmist to believe the ACA will fail. Look at the bill's passage, challenge in the court, the lies and half-truths about what was promised, and now the website. What has gone right with this thing? I'm sure something has and I want to believe something has, but everywhere you turn there's another WTF? moment. Success breeds success.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> The part where a bean counter is responsible for granting if you get your healthcare or not based upon the "guidelines".  Ive seen with my own eyes an appointment card for an individual in the UK healthcare system, for an MRI scan...three years from now.  This is in our future.



So something that has not happened yet.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 3, 2013)

Well actually it has.  Via the IPAB.  
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1005402



> The board is charged with developing specific detailed proposals to reduce per capita Medicare spending in years when spending is expected to exceed target levels, beginning with 2015. The DHHS must implement these proposals unless Congress adopts equally effective alternatives. The board is also charged with submitting to Congress annual detailed reports on health care costs, access, quality, and utilization. Finally, the IPAB must submit to Congress recommendations regarding ways of slowing the growth in private national health care expenditures.
> 
> Each year, beginning April 30, 2013, the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will make a determination as to whether the projected average Medicare growth rate for the 5-year period ending 2 years later will exceed the target growth rate for the year ending that period. For years before 2018, the target growth rate is the projected 5-year average of the mean of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the medical care CPI; for 2018 and later years, the target is the nominal per capita growth rate of the gross domestic product plus 1 percentage point. If the CMS actuary determines for any given year that the projected Medicare growth rate will exceed the target rate, the board must make proposals that would reduce Medicare spending overall by either a percentage set in the statute (1.5% after 2017) or the projected excess, whichever is less.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottat...-obamas-nice-way-to-ration-care-to-seniors/2/



> Beginning January 15, 2014 and every year thereafter, the law requires the board to submit specific recommendations to the President and Congress to “slow the growth” in national health expenditures. However, decisions by the panel are not simply recommendations to Congress; if the Senate, the House, and the president do not concur on an alternative proposal, or if Congress does not act at all, the HHS Secretary is required to implement the board’s recommendations. The Secretary’s actions are immune from any administrative modification, presidential veto, or judicial review. As of August 15, 2014, if the IPAB does not submit such recommendations and Congress does not enact its own Medicare payment restrictions, the Secretary of HHS, an unelected official, is authorized to make and implement them unilaterally, i.e. without any other approval.



Just a reminder, the current Secretary of HHS is Kathleen Sebelius.  The one taking the blame(but no apparent consequences other than a dressing down by Congress) for the Healthcare.gov website mess.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Nov 5, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> You personally know several people with low deductible plans that are losing them? That's surprising. As the ultimate goal of the ACA is to get people into plans with low deductibles.



I do the benefits administration for a small business with 35 - 50 employees.  One of the 1st things I do when we are approaching our renewal is go to the major insurers and run individual quotes on myself.  (Relatively healthy, not too old, no long term diagnosis that require treatment or Rx).  This gives the business owners and myself a point of comparison so that when we receive our group plan quotes, we have something to bounce it off of in regard to monthly premium & plan selection to see if our benefits offering is in the market of what someone coming on board could get for themselves.

I am not sure what Capitol Hill considers "low deductible" but the lowest deductible plan available as quoted by 1 carrier for individuals coverage was $3650 with 100% coinsurance after the deductible was met.  Another individual quote I received this year had the lowest deductible plans at $1500 but were 3x the monthly premium of our 2013 group plan with a $1500 deductible.

Also - we received our group plan termination letter from our current carrier - as we are not going to be able to keep the plan that we like moving into 2014.  These were both low deductible ($500 & $1500 respectively) in which the cost to the individual on the $1500 deductible plan in their monthly premium was only $150/mo (we pay the other $150/mo).  The carrier also provided our renewal plans quoted with higher deductibles, higher copays, higher Rx copays and much higher monthly premiums than what we pay now.  So... less benefits, higher deductibles, and higher cost.

The "ultimate goal" has stopped way short of the finish line.


----------



## Th3 Maelstr0m (Nov 6, 2013)

Duffelblog win.



> *Sebelius Threatens To Put VA In Charge Of Obamacare If Critics Don’t ‘Back The Fuck Off’*
> 
> “You think this is bad now? You think this is bad now?! You ain’t seen nothing!” Sebelius says in the two-minute video posted early this morning.
> 
> ...


----------



## RetPara (Nov 6, 2013)

Posted that on a couple of other pages and it was like throwing bloody meat to sharks.....


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 6, 2013)

Th3 Maelstr0m said:


> Duffelblog win.



Fucking classic!!!


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Nov 6, 2013)

We just received our group plan renewal rates & rates from competing carriers for 2014.  This was dismal.  I would like for President Obama to come sit down with me, in my office, for the 2-3 weeks that I work through the renewal process for a small business.  I think it'd be an eye opening experience for him and would maybe help him see that the law, as it's written, benefits only a very select segment of the population.

Edited: I should say group plan quotes from our current carrier, instead of renewal rates.  We can't renew our existing plans, since they are no longer offered.


----------



## Brill (Nov 6, 2013)

He's the only voice of moderation nowadays.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...dishonest-accuses-opponents-of-lying/?hpid=z3


----------



## Dame (Nov 6, 2013)

AMRUSMCR said:


> We just received our group plan renewal rates & rates from competing carriers for 2014.  This was dismal.  I would like for President Obama to come sit down with me, in my office, for the 2-3 weeks that I work through the renewal process for a small business.  I think it'd be an eye opening experience for him and would maybe help him see that the law, as it's written, benefits only a very select segment of the population.



I suspect he knows.


----------



## JHD (Nov 7, 2013)

lindy said:


> He's the only voice of moderation nowadays.



Which is a scary thought.  I liken Obama's "you can keep it, period" comment to GHWB's comment "read my lips.  No new taxes" comment.  And maybe they both meant the comments at the time they were said.  However, GHWB at least acknowledged that what he said and what he and Congress ended up doing were two different things, and they had to react to the situation.  Obama never acknowledges anything.  He is in perpetual spin mode.

Obamacare was to be the jewel of his presidency, and so far, it is a big fail.  His administration has been chock full of scandal after scandal, differing from the Clinton WH of attempting to cover up extramarital affairs and issues surrounding corruptness and greed.  The scandals of the Obama administration show a complete disregard for American values.  

I obviously didn't vote for Obama, but after he won the first time, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see what he would do.  He has been a profound disappointment to me, and it makes me sick to see what he is doing to our country's reputation on a global scale.  I am hoping America has some common sense the next time we have an opportunity to vote for President.  If the blinders haven't been lifted from the collective citizens's eyes by this administration, the wake up call was a waste.  I am hoping the collective we is smarter than that.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 7, 2013)

Obamacare served up on the CMA.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 7, 2013)

Got the usual suspects all riled up, too. It was pretty funny.


----------



## compforce (Nov 7, 2013)

AMRUSMCR said:


> We just received our group plan renewal rates & rates from competing carriers for 2014.  This was dismal.  I would like for President Obama to come sit down with me, in my office, for the 2-3 weeks that I work through the renewal process for a small business.  I think it'd be an eye opening experience for him and would maybe help him see that the law, as it's written, benefits only a very select segment of the population.
> 
> Edited: I should say group plan quotes from our current carrier, instead of renewal rates.  We can't renew our existing plans, since they are no longer offered.


 
+1 we got the same notice.  We're going through the options to see what we will have.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 7, 2013)

I just read this on Fox so I went over to Whitehouse.gov to take a look for myself.  Sure enough..there it is. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/07/white-house-website-at-odds-with-latest-obama-statement/



> For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.



So I took a screen shot for posterity because Im sure that sentence wont stay there for long.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 7, 2013)

So NOW POTUS says he is sorry? 

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-he’s-sorry-for-americans-losing-insurance-plans-233753421.html

Tell it to these folks:
http://mycancellation.com/


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2013)

What a cluster...

I love this line at the end of the CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



> The administration knew that many policies would be changed by the insurance carriers. In 2010 the Health and Human Services Department estimated that 40% to 67% of individual plans would lose their grandfather status.


 
I don't know if this will get better, but I'm safe in the assumption that it will get worse.

'Murica.


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2013)

Hypothetically, let's say that tomorrow the President, the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS formed some magical swirling vortex of reason and said "The ACA is broken and we're repealing it. From today we're starting over with a clean slate."

How many of you would be fine with that? Even those of you who have supported the ACA from the beginning, at least the concept, and I know I'm one. I support the intent.

But me personally? Even hint at another opportunity for these clowns to get it right? Not a chance in hell. Therein lies one of the many, many tragedies about to hit. The next time the gov't says it will administer a program to do xxxx who in their right mind would support that? "We'll pass a bill." Uh, fuckyouverymuch.

I have to wonder if Americans are smart enough to remember this...but I think I know the answer to that too.

ETA: Fire up Google and type repealing. You'll love the first suggestion....


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 7, 2013)

What blows my mind is the money that has been wasted.  Just on the website alone.  How much is the "fix" costing?


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 7, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Hypothetically, let's say that tomorrow the President, the House, the Senate, and SCOTUS formed some magical swirling vortex of reason and said "The ACA is broken and we're repealing it. From today we're starting over with a clean slate."
> 
> How many of you would be fine with that? Even those of you who have supported the ACA from the beginning, at least the concept, and I know I'm one. I support the intent.
> 
> ...


I am not against socialized or national health care systems.

ACA will not work without tort reform, and the Dems will not include tort reform into a healthcare package.

Cheap low cost plans for folks without insurance is what the supporters thought they were getting.  Bring a mediCare type of insurance plan for catastropic events, and add a $50.00 co-pay for non emergency ER visits, and $10.00 co-pay for other visits.


----------



## AWP (Nov 8, 2013)

This morning I pulled up "the big 3" as I like to think of online news sites: Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. I use those as a high level smattering of what's going on (and which side is reporting what) before going into the weeds on other sites.

Yesterday, CNN considered the President's mea culpa to be the top story for less than an hour before replacing it and moving it down to the #2 or #3 story on the left-hand side. Today the President's apology (as I type this) is buried towards the bottom under "Politics".

Fox has the story on the second row of articles to go with Petraeus' blocking/ downgrading of Swenson's MOH and some crap about McDonald's. Both Fox and CNN carry the Philippine typhoon as their lead story.

MSNBC is carrying the apology as their #2 story.

So, "My bad" from the leader of the free world doesn't even rate a full news cycle? After months of personal reassurances his admission of "misinformation" is buried in less than 12 hours? Well, at least we can catch up on hazing in the NFL...


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2013)

Did you know this?  How is this "shared responsibility" if only one party is responsible for paying the cost?

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision

Basic Information
1. What is the individual shared responsibility provision?

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government, state governments, insurers, employers and individuals are given shared responsibility to reform and improve the availability, quality and affordability of health insurance coverage in the United States. Starting in 2014, the individual shared responsibility provision calls for each individual to have minimum essential health coverage (known as minimum essential coverage) for each month, qualify for an exemption, or *make a payment* when filing his or her federal income tax return.

2. *Who is subject to the individual shared responsibility provision*?

The provision applies to individuals of all ages, including children. The adult or married couple who can claim a child or another individual as a dependent for federal income tax purposes is responsible for making the payment if the dependent does not have coverage or an exemption.


6. What are the statutory *exemptions from the requirement* to obtain minimum essential coverage?


*Religious conscience.* You are a member of a religious sect that is recognized as conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration administers the process for recognizing these sects according to the criteria in the law.
*Health care sharing ministry.* You are a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry.
*Indian tribes.* You are a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe.
*No filing requirement.* Your income is below the minimum threshold for filing a tax return. The requirement to file a federal tax return depends on your filing status, age and types and amounts of income. To find out if you are required to file a federal tax return, use the IRS Interactive Tax Assistant (ITA).
*Short coverage gap.* You went without coverage for less than three consecutive months during the year. For more information, see question 22.
*Hardship.* The Health Insurance Marketplace, also known as the Affordable Insurance Exchange, has certified that you have suffered a hardship that makes you unable to obtain coverage.
*Unaffordable coverage options.* You can’t afford coverage because the minimum amount you must pay for the premiums is more than eight percent of your household income.
*Incarceration.* You are in a jail, prison, or similar penal institution or correctional facility after the disposition of charges against you.
*Not lawfully present.* You are not a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or an alien lawfully present in the U.S


----------



## Marauder06 (Nov 8, 2013)

> *Not lawfully present.* You are not a U.S. citizen, a U.S. national or an alien lawfully present in the U.S



I thought one of the major reasons we needed universal coverage was because of all of the (3 million +) uninsured people living in the US illegally?  So illegal residents can garner the benefits of the system, yet not have to pay into it?


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I thought one of the major reasons we needed universal coverage was because of all of the (3 million +) uninsured people living in the US illegally?  So illegal residents can garner the benefits of the system, yet not have to pay into it?



Holy Fawk!

I had no idea it was $1.3B (in 2011 dollars) bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...for-some-undocumented-immigrants-health-care/



> It isn't widely known, but taxpayers already do subsidize health care for illegal immigrants. That's been true for years and is likely to expand under Obamacare.
> 
> The program doesn't really have a name, but it is referred to colloquially as emergency Medicaid. It is reimbursement offered to hospitals to provide emergency and maternity care to people who, based on their income and other factors, would be eligible for regular Medicaid if only they weren't a) in the country illegally, or b) in the country legally but not lawful long enough to join Medicaid (five years).


----------



## OSINT (Nov 11, 2013)

This might be a little OT as it doesn't deal with the ACA website, but it's an interesting read.
Commandeering the People: Why the Individual Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional 
Randy E. Barnett.  NYU Law
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_068092.pdf


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 12, 2013)

How 'bout this?  I tried it out.  It works very well IMHO.  With the added benefit that I didnt have to enter any personal info.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bamacare-website-just-days-government-do.html



> While the Obamacare website still remains broken, three 20-year-old programmers have shown the government how it should be done.
> 
> Ning Liang, George Kalogeropoulos and Michael Wasser developed a site in matter of days - and it does things the expensive and faltering healthcare.gov can't do.
> 
> From a San Francisco office the men have built HealthSherpa.com, which presents the Affordable Health Care Act data in a much simpler way to the government website.


----------



## AWP (Nov 12, 2013)

Billary steps up with his thoughts. I'm cynical enough to think this for his wife's benefit, but it is nice to see him come out and say something instead of spouting a party line.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...commitment-on-keeping-health-plans/?hpt=hp_t2



> “I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they’ve got,” Clinton said during an interview with the website OZY.com.


 


> The House of Representatives is slated to vote later this week on a GOP-backed measure that would enact changes to Obamacare allowing insurance companies to continue offering individual plans that are currently being canceled because they don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s standards for coverage.
> While congressional Democrats are largely standing by the law, a number of them are trying to distance themselves from problems tied to the rollout. Among other things, some Democrats are pushing for an extension of the enrollment period or a delay in the penalty for not obtaining coverage.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 12, 2013)

Obama may have to accept a delay or change in the law if the ems want to keep the Senate. 

Watching Harry Reid eat a delay in the implementation would be enjoyable experience.


----------



## JHD (Nov 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Billary steps up with his thoughts. I'm cynical enough to think this for his wife's benefit, but it is nice to see him come out and say something instead of spouting a party line.
> 
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...commitment-on-keeping-health-plans/?hpt=hp_t2



And it is a darn shame that the collective we notice when a politician states common sense that should be perfectly obvious to everyone, including this stubborn, arrogant do-no-wrong POTUS.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 12, 2013)

Oh great.  The "navigators" are encouraging fraud?  Say it aint so! (reminds me of ACORN)
http://twitchy.com/2013/11/11/there...eefe-exposes-obamacare-navigator-fraud-video/


----------



## Rabid Badger (Nov 13, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> What blows my mind is the money that has been wasted.  Just on the website alone.  How much is the "fix" costing?


I find it interesting the JUST THE ENROLLMENT process is being looked at.....next comes BILLING CYCLES. The gubmint run VA fucks up so many bills...ie, you are not enrolled in UnitedHealthcare, ot TriCare is not your primary healthcare.....etc, etc. Trust me as a 21 year vet, between the doctors office and TriCare, I'm at about 50% of getting it right, at my expense.

What happens when the doctor bills SKYROCKET for the already administered healthcare, all because the insurance companies want their cut? Where's the taxpayer recourse......."Well, you signed up for THIS deductible, but the doctor is now asking for double the quoted price"...(because he can, and will) The onus will fall back on the taxpayer to pay the bill in full and THEN fight the insurance company / credit bureau to keep the late payments off the books and avoid a lower (all important) credit score. Credit score goes down, premiums go up......ouch....and all because the government lied to the masses, force fed us a bogus healthcare plan that won't work, and REFUSES to take the blame and at least re-structure / delay the penalties for not enrolling in their FAILED ACA healthcare plan.

FM.....can anyone see anything wrong with this picture? :wall:


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 13, 2013)

Trey Gowdy questions tech advisors...


----------



## Gypsy (Nov 14, 2013)

Repeal this piece of shit.  Allow people to buy their own insurance across state lines if they so choose and pick their own coverage.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

Major Garrett.  Nicely done.  POTUS needs to learn when to stop talking.


----------



## JHD (Nov 14, 2013)

I don't know if it has been posted already (I don't remember seeing it), but a statistic I read today from the NRSC said that under Obamacare, the number of people that lost their healthcare coverage under Obamacare is greater than the population of Chicago.  Holy cow, if true.  I knew it was a lot, but that puts it in perspective.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

I found out my brother was one of them.  He just got a notice 2 days ago.  Interestingly, his was an employer furnished policy.  In order to keep his policy as it stands, it would only be 2k a month.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I found out my brother was one of them.  He just got a notice 2 days ago.  Interestingly, his was an employer furnished policy.  In order to keep his policy as it stands, it would only be 2k a month.



2K a month in premiums? How much was he paying before?


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

$478.00 a month for a family of 5.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> $478.00 a month for a family of 5.



Must have had a pretty terrible plan. I pay 400 a month for myself.


----------



## JHD (Nov 14, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Must have had a pretty terrible plan. I pay 400 a month for myself.



My issue with that is that if he was happy with his plan and didn't want to change he shouldn't have to, and he shouldn't be dropped from his existing plan.  With a family of five, maybe that plan was cost effective for him.  With a family of five, $20,000 more a year is a pretty large expense to absorb.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2013)

JHD said:


> My issue with that is that if he was happy with his plan and didn't want to change he shouldn't have to, and he shouldn't be dropped from his existing plan.  With a family of five, maybe that plan was cost effective for him.  With a family of five, $20,000 more a year is a pretty large expense to absorb.



Yeah well when one of those kids gets sick and they have a deductible of 50 grand, or if they go over what is covered who ends up footing that bill again? This isn't directed at chops brother, but anyone who has terrible insurance. If you think you aren't paying for those people who have 3 kids and a low premium now you are kidding yourself. 

Please don't talk to me about how you know someone who pays their bills or how "I payed off over years" whatever, most people don't. They have an accident then get disability and Medicare, and if that still doesn't cover it they declare bankruptcy and in the end everyone pays the price anyways.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

Actually, they had quite a nice plan.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

Regarding the "fix"
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/1...derwriters-on-the-fix-this-is-a-new-insanity/


> I just spoke with David Oscar, the communications chair for the New Jersey Association of Health Underwriters and a partner at Altigro Financial Group. He had this to say regarding President Obama’s attempt to offer a one-year restoration of canceled plans:
> 
> This a new insanity.
> 
> ...



And is it even legal?  This is the same question I had about Obama delaying the employer mandate.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/11/14/howard-dean-is-obamas-fix-even-legal/



> DEAN: “I’ll keep it short because i can talk forever for health care. A, I wonder if he had the legal authority to do this since it’s a congressional bill that set it up.”


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Actually, they had quite a nice plan.


 
I find that very very difficult to believe. Here is what is listed on blue cross blue shield for a family of 5 and a household income of 100K, that is two middle income jobs. The highest premium listed, with ZERO deductible is 1138 dollars a month. However that is the Bentley of packages(25 dollar co pay, 0 prescription drug costs, and 0 deductible). There are packages with  a 1-3K deductible that run about 500 dollars a month. 

So once again, 2K a month just doesn't add up.


----------



## JHD (Nov 14, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Yeah well when one of those kids gets sick and they have a deductible of 50 grand, or if they go over what is covered who ends up footing that bill again? This isn't directed at chops brother, but anyone who has terrible insurance. If you think you aren't paying for those people who have 3 kids and a low deductible now you are kidding yourself.
> 
> Please don't talk to me about how you know someone who pays their bills or how "I payed off over years" whatever, most people don't. They have an accident then get disability and Medicare, and if that still doesn't cover it they declare bankruptcy and in the end everyone pays the price anyways.



I hear what you are saying, but the insurance business is all about playing the odds.  And if those people with affordable insurance want that insurance because that $2,000 extra per month is their rent or mortgage payment, they shouldn't be forced into something that isn't right for their family.  A lot of people choose to play the odds that they won't need a Mazerati insurance plan, but will be happy with a much less expensive plan, as luckily, most people don't have catastrophic illnesses strike. Yes, some will, but most won't.  And for those people where insurance can't exceed a certain amount per month, they shouldn't be forced into a plan to cover things they most likely won't need.

I don't disagree with you that we end up paying for those who might not be adequately covered if there is a catastrophic incident.  But I would much rather help cover an occasional incident, rather than help cover everyone for insurance they are paying too much for to begin with.  Instead of paying to fix a hemmorage, we will be dying a death of a thousand cuts.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I find that very very difficult to believe. Here is what is listed on blue cross blue shield for a family of 5 and a household income of 100K, that is two middle income jobs. The highest premium listed, with ZERO deductible is 1138 dollars a month. However that is the Bentley of packages(25 dollar co pay, 0 prescription drug costs, and 0 deductible). There are packages with  a 1-3K deductible that run about 500 dollars a month.
> 
> So once again, 2K a month just doesn't add up.



The company my brother has(had) is through Health America HMOof PA.  I do not know what if anything his employer paid toward the policy now vs in the future, but I saw his cancellation letter.  To retain the benefits he had, starting Jan 1, 2014 his payment would increase to 2k PER month.  I dont question my brother as to his household expenses ect but I can tell you in the last year there was a tonsil removal on one kid, a broken arm for another and an appendectomy on the third child.    Never once did he complain of any deductibles or any related health care expenses.  In fact, this is the first time in our lives we have ever discussed our health insurance coverage with one another.    So basically if you are calling me or my brother a liar that is simply way off the mark.  I am very upset on his behalf.  I never dreamed he would be one of the nearly 4 million people that got that cancellation letter this year.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 14, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> The company my brother has(had) is through Health America HMOof PA.  I do not know what if anything his employer paid toward the policy now vs in the future, but I saw his cancellation letter.  To retain the benefits he had, starting Jan 1, 2014 his payment would increase to 2k PER month.  I dont question my brother as to his household expenses ect but I can tell you in the last year there was a tonsil removal on one kid, a broken arm for another and an appendectomy on the third child.    Never once did he complain of any deductibles or any related health care expenses.  In fact, this is the first time in our lives we have ever discussed our health insurance coverage with one another.    So basically if you are calling me or my brother a liar that is simply way off the mark.  I am very upset on his behalf.  I never dreamed he would be one of the nearly 4 million people that got that cancellation letter this year.



I'm not calling you a liar, but maybe you and your brother need to look at all available options rather than just saying your getting fucked, and you have to pay 2K more per month. Nobody is going to make him pay 2K a month, and as I said earlier plans are available that are enormously cheaper than 2400+ dollars.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 14, 2013)

But again, he was happy with his plan, with the payment and the benefits.  I just think it is crazy that the government is telling people what is best for us.  What is going to be next?  How would you feel if suddenly your Tricare thinks it is better for you to have a 2k policy instead of what you have now?  Never say never. 
And just because Obama so benevolently said today on TV that he is granting that we subjects may keep our plans for another year is going to make it so.  I question the legality of this without Congressional approval.  Although that has never stopped Obama before. 
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health...-obamacare-fix-but-one-insurer-is-ok-with-it/



> The insurance commissioner for Washington state, Mike Kreidler, says he won’t allow carriers in his jurisdiction to continue offering the individual health policies next year that they offered this year. Kreidler, a Democrat, says he has “serious concerns” about how Obama’s proposal to allow insurers to keep offering the same plans would affect the stability of the insurance market, echoing statements from carriers themselves that the idea could backfire.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2013)

It doesn't matter what the plan cost or the deductible or anything...."if you like your plan you can keep your plan." Right? The whole point of the ACA was to bring people up, not tear them down.

When does it get better?


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 15, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Must have had a pretty terrible plan. I pay 400 a month for myself.


:-/

So a crappy plan at 4x the cost suddenly becomes a good plan?


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 15, 2013)

SOWT said:


> :-/
> 
> So a crappy plan at 4x the cost suddenly becomes a good plan?


It was actually an excellent plan.  He has  told me since his company has less the 50 employees the employer chose to take the penalty rather than pay their portion of the premiums.  Works out much cheaper for the company in the long run.  Merry Christmas. 
Not sure what if anything today's House vote will do for them.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 15, 2013)




----------



## Chopstick (Nov 15, 2013)

Chicago Tribune throws down ....again.  Ouch.
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78189619/



> On some level, then, the president plainly agrees with critics of Obamacare, this page included, that the law needs to be rewritten: He and his administration keep rewriting its major components — remember the mandate that sizable employers offer coverage in 2014? — as practicalities and politics demand.
> 
> But in this country we don't change bad laws by presidential fiat. We change them by having Congress rewrite them or by starting from scratch. Obama doesn't want to reopen this law for fear that Republicans and some Democrats will substantially rewrite it. But that's what has to happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 15, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Chicago Tribune throws down ....again.  Ouch.
> http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78189619/



The author makes good points, I think they could stand to go back to the drawing board.


----------



## AWP (Nov 15, 2013)

At the risk of being dramatic, the ACA is like the Titanic. No one would argue with a massive luxury liner equipped with modern comforts, but that same liner with bad metal, poor leadership, and no lifeboats? Danger, Will Robinson!

Like the Titanic or any ship, if you have a bad hull you can't patch it, you have to start over. So you eat the cost or accept that your concept isn't worth the hassle.

Personally, I think this is something we should get right and we should fix, even if it means starting over. The fear I have, as I've posted earlier, is I don't trust the system to get it right. It will go back to the shipyard and have a fresh coat of paint applied and new china in the first class lounge. BAM! Titanic 2.0


----------



## JHD (Nov 15, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Chicago Tribune throws down ....again.  Ouch.
> http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78189619/



Agree.  So far it seems Obama's recommended "fix" amounts to passing the political hot potato to the insurance companies to fix.  The whole thing needs to be scrapped, and started anew.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 17, 2013)

Maybe this guy can join the fired Admiral and Generals support group? 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop



> A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White was fired.
> 
> White was called into a meeting Friday afternoon with one of Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s (D) top deputies and told that the mayor “wants to go in a different direction,” White told The Washington Post on Saturday.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 18, 2013)

College Students are the next group finding out what the definition of affordable is:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/18/students-suffer-sticker-shock-from-obamacare/


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 18, 2013)

So, how wrong is this guy ? 
(note: the video is from 1978 but that adds to it's value and despite being nearly 10 min. it's worth a watch/listen)


----------



## Dame (Nov 19, 2013)

Obama's poster mom just found out the real cost of Obamacare.

http://www.conservativeintel.com/20...n-discovered-it-will-actually-cost-her-621mo/


> A few weeks ago, I noted that nearly all of the early Obamacare applicants on the Washington State Health Benefit exchange had been given bad information. They were told they qualified for large subsidies to pay their insurance premiums, but it was all the result of a computer error that was massively underreporting the applicants’ income.
> 
> Jessica Sanford of Federal Way, Wash., a freelance court reporter. She isn’t just any enrollee. As it happens, President Obama once mentioned her by name. She was so thrilled at getting a “gold” level insurance plan for herself and her son for just $169 per month that she had written Obama to thank him. And then he read from her letter and gave her a name-check in his October 21 Rose Garden speech. He told her story — one of the few positive ones out there — as part of his sales pitch...
> 
> Unfortunately, Washington State did finally got back to Sanford about her application. That $452 subsidy we said you’d get? That was a mistake. You actually get zero. So for that gold plan, instead of paying $169 per month, you’d pay $621 per month.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Nov 19, 2013)

Dame said:


> Obama's poster mom just found out the real cost of Obamacare.
> 
> http://www.conservativeintel.com/20...n-discovered-it-will-actually-cost-her-621mo/


Sooooooo, at the sake of sounding partisan, where are the good news sories to this fiasco?? Are there any Libs that care to share the good news?? So far we've seen the last 3 pages on this thread alone with ZERO backbone from the Liberals who so whole heartedly supported the ACA.......so what now? Skip town?? Delete / scrub your posts?? "We The People" haven't forgotten.



TLDR20 said:


> Must have had a pretty terrible plan. I pay 400 a month for myself.


 
ETA: How is it that you're a Special Forces Medic (E-6), eligible for TriCare even when on inactive status, and you pay $400 a month for healthcare insurance?? Not calling you out or calling you a liar or anything..................but the numbers don't quite add up.....as you so eloquently stated before to someone else.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 19, 2013)

You know, at this point you would think that POTUS would watch that technology snafu thing, as well as take great care to NOT embellish, the numbers.  He just digs himself deeper.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-million-Americans-successfully-enrolled.html



> The White House did not respond to an email asking whether it would correct the president's claim that 100 million Americans have enrolled already.



Twittersphere was not kind. 



> @*WhiteHouse* Waiting for the OFA website conference call to work? #*utterfailure* #*unqualified* #*inept* #*corrupt* #*SerialLiar*


----------



## JHD (Nov 19, 2013)

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see what the "numbers" are, once Sebelius finally presents them.  With everything that has happened, I don't know how they think they will get the numbers needed to make Obamacare viable.  Everything else has been a fail, I can't imagine that the numbers will even approach what is needed.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 19, 2013)

RB said:


> Sooooooo, at the sake of sounding partisan, where are the good news sories to this fiasco?? Are there any Libs that care to share the good news?? So far we've seen the last 3 pages on this thread alone with ZERO backbone from the Liberals who so whole heartedly supported the ACA.......so what now? Skip town?? Delete / scrub your posts?? "We The People" haven't forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: How is it that you're a Special Forces Medic (E-6), eligible for TriCare even when on inactive status, and you pay $400 a month for healthcare insurance?? Not calling you out or calling you a liar or anything..................but the numbers don't quite add up.....as you so eloquently stated before to someone else.



 I'm not eligible for tricare anymore. When I ETS I had insurance provided by my job for free(so why pay for tricare?), now that I am in school and the enrollment period for tricare had elapsed I'm not eligible. We actually pay 421 a month for just me.

As to the other stuff, yeah I'm going to skip town and delete my posts because of a bad rollout to a law... I still think that there should be at a minimum a requirement for insurance, and no bar on things like pre-existing conditions. It's too bad this is not going well because I had really high hopes. But I'm not ashamed to say that the law is bad, and it needs to be fixed.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 19, 2013)

RB said:


> Sooooooo, at the sake of sounding partisan, where are the good news sories to this fiasco?? Are there any Libs that care to share the good news?? So far we've seen the last 3 pages on this thread alone with ZERO backbone from the Liberals who so whole heartedly supported the ACA.......so what now? Skip town?? Delete / scrub your posts?? "We The People" haven't forgot.



For the people that the law was generally targeting (the young and poor) insurance is ridiculously cheap.  A few other vet friends and I have signed up recently (using California's excellent exchange website) and we hardly pay anything for policies.  I think the most expensive premium I saw among us was about 150$.  Personally, my policy will cost 77$ a month when coverage takes effect.  Some guys were covered under the expanded Medicaid, so they aren't paying anything.  So for us, who typically would have a hard time affording insurance, its been great.


----------



## AWP (Nov 19, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> For the people that the law was generally targeting (the young and poor) insurance is ridiculously cheap.  A few other vet friends and I have signed up recently (using California's excellent exchange website) and we hardly pay anything for policies.  I think the most expensive premium I saw among us was about 150$.  Personally, my policy will cost 77$ a month when coverage takes effect.  Some guys were covered under the expanded Medicaid, so they aren't paying anything.  So for us, who typically would have a hard time affording insurance, its been great.


 
I'm honestly happy to hear that it went right for someone. How much of this is Fed. vs. State success I'm not versed enough in the details to measure, but I am happy it works.

The problem is Atlanta's burning and you and a few friends just showed up with buckets of water. I'm glad this worked for you and others, but if you think of this as a computer system, the MTTF rate is through the roof.

I'm glad you brought it up though. This morning I was thought "Where are the success stories?" Surely even liberal media sources would carry those front and center to offset the negatives? Facts which could be verified and agreed upon by other sources?

Yeah...


----------



## Loki (Nov 19, 2013)

The parasite liberals are now confused. This was supposed to be free and hard working people pay for it.  It's supposed to be cheaper and save you up to "2500" average per year. Got duped again by the liar and chief. This has just begun, this is the tip. Employer mandates will body slam America.  "Elections have consequences"


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 19, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> For the people that the law was generally targeting (the young and poor) insurance is ridiculously cheap.  A few other vet friends and I have signed up recently (using California's excellent exchange website) and we hardly pay anything for policies.  I think the most expensive premium I saw among us was about 150$.  Personally, my policy will cost 77$ a month when coverage takes effect.  Some guys were covered under the expanded Medicaid, so they aren't paying anything.  So for us, who typically would have a hard time affording insurance, its been great.


Is that a subsidized rate?
Lady in Oregon(?) just found they erroneously gave her a subsidy, and then tripled her rate when the subsidy was taken away.


----------



## 0699 (Nov 19, 2013)

SOWT said:


> *Is that a subsidized rate*?
> Lady in Oregon(?) just found they erroneously gave her a subsidy, and then tripled her rate when the subsidy was taken away.


 
I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 19, 2013)

Yes, that's the subsidized rate


----------



## Loki (Nov 19, 2013)

This plan in its current form is completely unsustainable which was the plan all along.  Single payer and a complete take over of medical care and services is the goal.  Obama has always said this and supported this, always has been and always will be the ultimate goal. The website is a wind fall for this administration right now. As soon as the facts and numbers are known as well as the cancellations they will wish for a website problem.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 19, 2013)

More "success" stories.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/18/students-suffer-sticker-shock-from-obamacare/



> At Bowie State University in Maryland, the cost of student health insurance policies went from roughly $100 a year to $1,800 a year.
> 
> The cancelled plan offered $5,000 worth of medical coverage to students for just $54 per semester. University administrators said an acceptable replacement under the Affordable Care Act would have cost $900 per emester, a 1,500 percent increase.





> The sticker shock didn’t sit well with some students who spoke out against the price hike.
> 
> “You’ve haven’t done anything Obama and I am disappointed in you,” one student said. Another told Campus Reform, “We don’t have that money. We can barely afford books.”
> 
> The frustration has been felt across the country as colleges and universities have to decide whether to cut coverage or offer sky-high plans that in some cases triple the cost of premiums.


----------



## Loki (Nov 19, 2013)

Facts are cold heartless things...


----------



## Loki (Nov 19, 2013)




----------



## Chopstick (Nov 24, 2013)

There ya go..it's the "manager's" fault.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...website-obama-health-care-law-column/3691463/



> What engineers know that lawyers and politicians often don't is that in the world of things, as opposed to people, there's no escaping the sharp teeth of reality. But in law, and especially politics, inconvenient facts are merely inconvenient, something to be rationalized away.
> 
> When our country has accomplished great things in the past, there has usually been a great engineer running the program: Hyman Rickover with the nuclear submarine program, or Wernher von Braun with the Apollo space program, for example. Rickover and von Braun were famously stern taskmasters, but they did not substitute wishes for reality.
> 
> Which may be why they were able to launch submarines, and rockets that astounded the world. While today, we can't even launch a website.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 25, 2013)

Someone earlier asked if there were any positives from this ACA fiasco. Looks like there are some:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205


----------



## Dame (Nov 25, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> Someone earlier asked if there were any positives from this ACA fiasco. Looks like there are some:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205


The legal hookers in Nevada love it. They can finally get health care as independent contractors with pre-existing conditions.


----------



## AWP (Nov 25, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> Someone earlier asked if there were any positives from this ACA fiasco. Looks like there are some:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205


 
I'm one of those who asked the question and I thank you for following up. While I applaud their success, this one quote is striking and leads me to a bit of a rant:



> One reason is that the state set up its own health-insurance exchange, *sidestepping the troubled federal one*.


 
The reality is that maybe there are programs some states can't administer because of the cost, but if you ever needed a reason to decentralize our Federal gov't, here' ya' go. Federal vs. State powers and responsibilites go back to the founding of our nation, so this argument isn't anything new. In fact, it formed the basis for a little internal dispute in the 1860's. As our Federal gov't grows, ask yourselves how much of that is necessary and how much of that could be run at the State level. Seriously. How big does Washington need to be?

I'll bet a dollar that when good news pops up we'll see the success stories (or more of them) coming from states which took a different path than the bloody fetus thrust upon us by Washington.

This isn't a right vs. left battle, or it shouldn't be, this is about how big does Big Brother need to be and your quality of life.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 25, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> Someone earlier asked if there were any positives from this ACA fiasco. Looks like there are some:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html?wpmk=MK0000205


Im just wondering how is it that people who smoke have to pay significantly higher premiums in the exchanges but there is no problem for the smokers in this story getting Medicaid.  Even the picture with the article shows a guy smoking a cigarette.  I wonder how much a month they spend on those cigarettes?



> You smoke?” Lively asked, going through a few routine questions.
> “Right- and left-handed,” he quipped as she typed.
> 
> “All right,” Lively said after a while. “You are covered.”
> ...





> Donna Robinson had already enrolled, and now she arrived for her 2 p.m. with her son Gary Gross, 36, a skinny man with spiky copper hair, worn-out jeans and a thin tank top.
> 
> “Now,” Lively began. “Any income?”
> 
> ...



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obamacare-policies-slam-smokers-could-backfire/



> ObamaCare may have backfired in its goal of making smoking so expensive that users quit, public health experts say, as sky-high insurance premiums force smokers to drop coverage altogether and lose smoking cessation programs along with it.
> 
> "Tobacco surcharges are not proven to help tobacco users quit and there are major concerns that they will prevent people from getting health care coverage," the American Lung Association's Jennifer Singleterry said.





> In a worst-case scenario, an older couple who smokes could be "literally impoverished" by ObamaCare premiums, said the report. That couple could pay an $11,352 health care premium, or one-half their annual income of $23,000. By comparison, a non-smoking person over 59 years old would pay 90 percent less, or just $952 after federal subsidies.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 25, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Im just wondering how is it that people who smoke have to pay significantly higher premiums in the exchanges but there is no problem for the smokers in this story getting Medicaid.  Even the picture with the article shows a guy smoking a cigarette.  I wonder how much a month they spend on those cigarettes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess people could quit smoking...(easier said than done I know. 6 months off of a can a day dipping habit) I don't know what your looking for here, I don't know why it is different. Maybe because it is a government program and they can't say no to people who smoke? I think it is good these people will get a chance to go to the Doctor though.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 25, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> I guess people could quit smoking...(easier said than done I know. 6 months off of a can a day dipping habit) I don't know what your looking for here, I don't know why it is different. Maybe because it is a government program and they can't say no to people who smoke? I think it is good these people will get a chance to go to the Doctor though.


Im saying that as far as I know smoking is the only "pre-existing condition" that is not getting a pass under Obamacare but the people jumping onto Medicaid are not penalized for it.  Who is picking up the tab?

ETA another feature of Obamacare.  The "Cadillac Tax".  
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...macare-cadillac-tax-in-reducing-benefits?lite



> Aaron Baker, 36, his wife Billie and their two young children are covered under a generous health insurance plan offered by the private Midwestern university where he’s worked for 10 years. When they opened their benefits notice this year, they were pleased to see their $385 premium is only up by four dollars next year. However, they were shocked to discover that instead of covering the first dollar they spend with no deductible, the Baker’s plan now includes a $1,000 deductible and a $2,500 out of pocket maximum. They also will still have small co-pays for services.





> According to the enrollment notice, the changes are “to relieve future health plan trend pressure and to put the university in a position to avoid the excise tax that becomes effective in 2018.” The 40 percent excise tax—often called the “Cadillac tax”— is part of Obamacare and is levied on the most generous health plans. It’s designed to bring down overall health costs by making companies and workers more cost-conscious. The thinking is that if consumers have to pay more expenses themselves, through higher deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses, they’ll avoid unnecessary or overly costly procedures. And that is supposed to make care more affordable for everyone.
> 
> Billie Baker doesn’t think much of that concept. “I think that saying that your insurance is too good so we're going to give you a penalty,” she said, “is sort of outrageous to me.”


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

I have always been of the opinion since obesity and smoking related diseases cause the most expensive burden on the healthcare system, that Big Tobacco and the fast food industry should kick in money to a pool that would be used to subsidize health care costs.  Cancers, heart related illnesses, and breathing issues, etc., are the most common occurrences of, and the most expensive things to treat.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> I have always been of the opinion since obesity and smoking related diseases cause the most expensive burden on the healthcare system, that Big Tobacco and the fast food industry should kick in money to a pool that would be used to subsidize health care costs.  Cancers, heart related illnesses, and breathing issues, etc., are the most common occurrences of, and the most expensive things to treat.


Are you fucking kidding me? Nobody makes anyone smoke, nor do fast food companies put Big Macs in fat people mouths.


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

I had a distinct feeling you would disagree.  And, yes, I agree that these companies don't force people to engage in acts horrible for their bodies.  My belief is that since they make the detrimental products available and make a ton of money off of the sale, better they chip in to pay for the increased costs rather than than those people that try to take better care of themselves.

Health care costs and health insurance costs are what they are because of the long term, expensive care and treatment for fighting these diseases.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 26, 2013)

No one is responsible for my decisions - good or bad - but me.


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> No one is responsible for my decisions - good or bad - but me.



That is true.  But if you have ever had a close loved one that made this choice and as a result had heart disease, emphysema, and cancer all at the same time from years of smoking, you would see what these diseases cost.  Both from a personal and practical point of view.  

Heart attacks, home health care, MRIs, stress tests, EKGs, constant hospital stays of weeks due to recurring pneumonia due to lung issues, surgeries, ambulance transportation, etc.  Add multiple medications to treat all of the above, in addition to various breathing apparatuses and monitors. Multiply that one person by the multiple people suffering from these diseases.  This is our healthcare catastrophe.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> That is true.  But if you have ever had a close loved one that made this choice and as a result had heart disease, emphysema, and cancer all at the same time from years of smoking, you would see what these diseases cost.  Both from a personal and practical point of view.
> 
> Heart attacks, home health care, MRIs, stress tests, EKGs, constant hospital stays of weeks due to recurring pneumonia due to lung issues, surgeries, ambulance transportation, etc.  Add multiple medications to treat all of the above, in addition to various breathing apparatuses and monitors. Multiply that one person by the multiple people suffering from these diseases.  This is our healthcare catastrophe.


People making poor decisions is our healthcare catastrophe? Well then I guess we should take away their right to make personal choices. Or we could force them to even out the amount that is paid by them by forcing them to have health insurance..... Oh wait....


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> People making poor decisions is our healthcare catastrophe? Well then I guess we should take away their right to make personal choices. Or we could force them to even out the amount that is paid by them by forcing them to have health insurance..... Oh wait....


 
Not exactly.  Not take away their right, see my first post.  And my father had excellent health care as a disabled veteran.  But nonetheless, takeing all emotion out of the situation and looking at it objectively, the rest of the non-smoking, non-overating people are already paying for the increased costs.  Now, we will be paying more via increased taxes and increased insurance costs with the Obamacare blessing.  Hence, my reasoning for Big Tobacco and McDonald's et al for helping pick up the tab rather than others. 

Personal choice is fine, but don't expect others to pick up your tab.  Even with insurance coverage, I still helped my mom with other associated expenses.

Your rights end where mine begin.


----------



## Dame (Nov 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> My belief is that since they make the detrimental products available and make a ton of money off of the sale, better they chip in to pay for the increased costs rather than than those people that try to take better care of themselves.
> 
> Health care costs and health insurance costs are what they are because of the long term, expensive care and treatment for fighting these diseases.





JHD said:


> That is true.  But if you have ever had a close loved one that made this choice and as a result had heart disease, emphysema, and cancer all at the same time from years of smoking, you would see what these diseases cost.  Both from a personal and practical point of view.
> 
> Heart attacks, home health care, MRIs, stress tests, EKGs, constant hospital stays of weeks due to recurring pneumonia due to lung issues, surgeries, ambulance transportation, etc.  Add multiple medications to treat all of the above, in addition to various breathing apparatuses and monitors.



OK, I'm going to make some rather strong and possibly unpopular statements about all this.

First, the tobacco industry already does exactly as you propose, to the tune of $206 billion. I know because I help administer the awarding of that money to grantees.


> The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered in November 1998, originally between the four largest United States tobacco companies (Philip Morris Inc., R. J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard – the _original participating manufacturers_) and the attorneys general of 46 states. The states settled their Medicaid lawsuits against the tobacco industry for recovery of their tobacco-related health-care costs, and also exempted the companies from private tort liability regarding harm caused by tobacco use. In exchange, *the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses.* The money also funds a new anti-smoking advocacy group, called the American Legacy Foundation, that is responsible for such campaigns as The Truth. The settlement also dissolved the tobacco industry groups Tobacco Institute, the Center for Indoor Air Research, and the Council for Tobacco Research. In the MSA, the original participating manufacturers (OPM) agreed to pay a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years of the agreement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
This settlement was reached after the tobacco companies were proven to have lied to the American public about the correlation between their product and the diseases you mentioned. The fast food industry doesn't have that luxury. We know it's bad and we call it junk food.

Second, not only does no one make you smoke or eat fast food, no one makes you spend extreme amounts of money to keep yourself alive. (At least until this not-so-affordable/avoidable care act and its penalties for not participating.) There are plenty of people in this world who decide to exit it without bankrupting their families and many of them did not bring the disease upon themselves. Cancer can strike anyone. It is extremely expensive to treat. Given a diagnosis of certain death, God forbid I should put my family through that kind of financial and emotional train wreck.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 26, 2013)

Alcoholism and drug addiction are covered under the ACA as "chronic diseases" and must be  covered components for a healthcare plan to be an Obamacare compliant policy.  Nicotine has been shown to be more addictive than heroin.  Why is nicotine addiction not a covered chronic disease?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Alcoholism and drug addiction are covered under the ACA as "chronic diseases" and must be  covered components for a healthcare plan to be an Obamacare compliant policy.  Nicotine has been shown to be more addictive than heroin.  Why is nicotine addiction not a covered chronic disease?



There is a huge difference in the reasons nicotine is more addictive. It has just as much to do with Psychological and social reasons as it does for physiological reasons. Opiates cause a physical dependency, which nicotine certainly doesn't do to the same level.Opiates withdrawal can kill someone. Nicotine withdrawal not so much.  Tell anyone who has been through opiate withdrawal that nicotine is more addictive, you will get laughed out if the room.


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

> This settlement was reached after the tobacco companies were proven to have lied to the American public about the correlation between their product and the diseases you mentioned.



I agree.  This settlement was for past actions, not current ones.  My big problem with the initial settlement was that the funds come with no strings attached.  Yes, the money has done some good at getting smoking levels reduced somewhat, but there are also states that use the money for pothole repairs and subsidizing their tobacco farmers.  There are no requirements on how the funds must be used.  A change in governors can result in a change as to how the trust fund is implemented, which can either be directed to or away for smoking related issues.

Also, you are correct as to cancer striking those who don't smoke.  But this is FAR less common than those being struck down with cancer from first hand smoke, not to mention those breathing polluted air with second or third hand smoke.  Similar to the cigarette tax industry, I wouldn't mind seeing the fast food industry penalized in a similar manner.  Let the people that want to eat this stuff pay more for it, and reduce the cost of the healthy options.  I realize this won't be a popular position either, but JMOO.

Lastly, as to the heartache, I understand what you are saying.  My father's cancer wasn't discovered until a few weeks before he died.  The heart and lung disease did him in before the cancer could.  No certain immediate death, just a long, slow, expensive decline over a 15 year period.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> I have always been of the opinion since obesity and smoking related diseases cause the most expensive burden on the healthcare system, that Big Tobacco and the fast food industry should kick in money to a pool that would be used to subsidize health care costs.  Cancers, heart related illnesses, and breathing issues, etc., are the most common occurrences of, and the most expensive things to treat.


Tobacco has already paid states for medical costs, the states (for the most part) did not use the money for health care.


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

From the Coca Cola thread, I disagree with you @TLDR20 on diabetes being the most expensive health issue.  A google search yielded this from a 2012 Forbes article:



> *1. HIV $25,000*
> 
> *2. Cancer $49,000*
> 
> ...



WebMD listed heart issues as number 1 out of 12, with diabetes at number 7 out of 12.  Cancer at number 3, breathing/lung at number 5, and high blood pressure at number 10, and high cholesterol at number 11.

I am also thinking I won't be getting your vote when I run for President.


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Tobacco has already paid states for medical costs, the states (for the most part) did not use the money for health care.



Agreed for past "sins" and misinformation.  I think they could/should do more.   Again JMOO.

I thought this blog entry's take on the issue was interesting.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/02/master-settlement-agreement-causing.html


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

@JHD diabetes is a pre-cursor to 4,6,9 on your list. So therefore you can combine those as well as diabetes. You don't just have type 2 diabetes most of the time, it is like a combo meal, it comes with hypertension(increased risk of stroke, heart attack) also decreased perfusion further elevates risk of stroke. If health existed in a vacuum then yeah those other things are expensive, but when three of them are due to another disease, it changes your perspective on cost


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

Along the same lines as to smoking 2,3,4,7,11,10...


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

JHD said:


> Along the same lines as to smoking 2,3,4,7,11,10...



So now we are requiring tobacco, soda, and fast food companies to subsidize healthcare? let's add in the auto industry, because cars cause accidents, and let's add in companies that make chocolate and candy in general, then America will be healthy and healthcare will be cheap right?


----------



## CDG (Nov 26, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> So now we are requiring tobacco, soda, and fast food companies to subsidize healthcare? let's add in the auto industry, because cars cause accidents, and let's add in companies that make chocolate and candy in general, then America will be healthy and healthcare will be cheap right?


 
Who do we add to cover those injured in natural disasters, slip and falls on icy streets, and falling icicles? If we can figure that one out, we'll really be getting somewhere.  @JHD, I can't at all understand how you can think these companies should be held responsible for people knowingly making choices that have well-documented health risks.  IMO, the people that create healthcare burden becasue they chose to make unhealthy choices for years should not be covered by anyone.  If they can't pay for it themselves, then too bad.  We don't have an obligation as a society to keep every fatass alive for as long as possible while they continue to scarf down Big Macs, Twinkies, and whatever else they shove down their gullets.


----------



## JHD (Nov 26, 2013)

No. Big tobacco 1st. Fast food 2nd. I get that you disagree. I disagree with paying for other people's medical bills, subsidizing their insurance, etc.   I had nothing to do with their poor choices.

@CDG my point is you and I and everyone else is being forced to do exactly what you say we shouldn't be doing. My point is that if anyone can't pay for their healthcare and the results of their poor choices, the citizens shouldn't be forced by the govt to cover their health care.  

If the govt wants to force someone to pay for it, force the companies that gained from the sale of the product. 

Taking earnings from the taxpayer to cover these costs doesn't mean that the govt is kind and caring. Anytime the govt gets involved in helping fix a bad situation, they usually screw it up.


----------



## Gypsy (Nov 26, 2013)

Here's a thought.  If you make bad choices they are yours and yours alone.  If you get cancer, diabetes etc because of them that is your problem not mine.  I don't have the inclination to pay for your poor choices so stay the fuck out of my money.  McDonalds, tobacco companies etc are not liable for YOUR poor choices.  Man up and accept responsibility for YOUR poor choices.

The government has NO RIGHT to make you spend your money on something you do not want.  Why they think they do is beyond understanding.

It is fucked up, this bill needs to be revoked.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 26, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> There is a huge difference in the reasons nicotine is more addictive. It has just as much to do with Psychological and social reasons as it does for physiological reasons. Opiates cause a physical dependency, which nicotine certainly doesn't do to the same level.Opiates withdrawal can kill someone. Nicotine withdrawal not so much.  Tell anyone who has been through opiate withdrawal that nicotine is more addictive, you will get laughed out if the room.


I think you miss my point.  Why were those people in Kentucky not asked "do you drink alcohol" or "do you eat donuts" or "do you drink Big Gulps"?    Why is smoking the only pre-existing condition that will cause a penalty in premiums for those that pay for their coverage vs seemingly to actually qualify one for Medicaid of Kentucky?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I think you miss my point.  Why were those people in Kentucky not asked "do you drink alcohol" or "do you eat donuts" or "do you drink Big Gulps"?    Why is smoking the only pre-existing condition that will cause a penalty in premiums for those that pay for their coverage vs seemingly to actually qualify one for Medicaid of Kentucky?



Because it is the only of those things that carries a Surgeon Generals Warning on the package.


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 26, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> Because it is the only of those things that carries a Surgeon Generals Warning on the package.


Sorry for the crappy picture as my camera on my phone is not the greatest but this is on a bottle of Bombay Sapphire I just happen to have ...it also appears on every bottle of alcohol we have in the house.  It begins "According to the Surgeon General........"


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 26, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Sorry for the crappy picture as my camera on my phone is not the greatest but this is on a bottle of Bombay Sapphire I just happen to have ...it also appears on every bottle of alcohol we have in the house.  It begins "According to the Surgeon General........"
> 
> View attachment 9752



Oh duh. I don't know, that was the only thing I could think of..


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 26, 2013)

Well, since we can assume that the Surgeon General's warning or lack there of doesnt answer why smoker's seem to qualify for Kentucky Medicaid without the penalties for smoking otherwise imposed by Obamacare, maybe we can just contemplate the December 2, 2013 cover of Time Magazine.  (Ouch)


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 27, 2013)

And if that cover of Time was not enough,  more  for the Pre-Turkey Day Obamacare bucket of fail.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/2...for-obamacare-website-team-as-deadline-nears/



> Yet, Bataille warned that Nov. 30 is “not a magical day.”
> 
> “There will be times after Nov. 30 when the site, like any website, does not perform optimally,” she said. Heavy traffic could overwhelm the site, causing long delays for consumers trying to sign up for coverage. Bataille said that by Saturday, CMS will implement a “more advanced queuing system” for consumers forced to wait for one of 50,000 user slots. In addition, the website may recommend some users leave and come back during “off peak hours” and will have a system to e-mail consumers when they can return to the website and enroll in a health insurance plan.





> A separate recent announcement indicates that, in addition to the trouble healthcare.gov, the federal government is falling further behind in its goal to implement other parts of the ACA on schedule. The Department of Health and Human Services said Wednesday that a new online insurance exchange for small businesses will not be operational until November 2014, more than a year after it was originally supposed to launch. The delay affects small businesses in the 36 states where exchange operations for individuals and small groups are being handled by the federal government.





> And thanks to crashes, slow response times and software and hardware problems, healthcare.gov itself has fallen behind enrollment goals set by federal officials who had hoped 7 million individuals would sign up for new coverage through that exchange and those run by states by the end of an open enrollment period that ends March 31.


----------



## AWP (Nov 27, 2013)

"Other than that Mrs.  Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"


----------



## Brill (Nov 27, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> So now we are requiring tobacco, soda, and fast food companies to subsidize healthcare? let's add in the auto industry, because cars cause accidents, and let's add in companies that make chocolate and candy in general, then America will be healthy and healthcare will be cheap right?



Will your car insurance go up when you get your new Audi?  Should you pay the same rate as the owner of a '04 Tacoma?


----------



## 0699 (Nov 27, 2013)

lindy said:


> Will your car insurance go up when you get your new Audi?  *Should you pay the same rate as the owner of a '04 Tacoma*?


 
Depends.  Is the Tacoma being shot at by LAPD officers looking for one of their own that's gone rogue?


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 27, 2013)

0699 said:


> Depends.  Is the Tacoma being shot at by LAPD officers looking for one of their own that's gone rogue?


That also depends if "this is not the Tacoma you were looking for".


----------



## Chopstick (Nov 27, 2013)

If this wasnt so sad it would really be funny.  "Still-fragile"? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/u...caution-on-health-site.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=1&



> White House officials, fearful that the federal health care website may again be overwhelmed this weekend, have urged their allies to hold back enrollment efforts so the insurance marketplace does not collapse under a crush of new users.
> 
> At the same time, administration officials said Tuesday that they had decided not to inaugurate a big health care marketing campaign planned for December out of concern that it might drive too many people to the still-fragile HealthCare.gov.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 27, 2013)

lindy said:


> Will your car insurance go up when you get your new Audi?  Should you pay the same rate as the owner of a '04 Tacoma?



That response was a clearly satirical view of her thought process.


----------



## Brill (Nov 28, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> That response was a clearly satirical view of her thought process.



Boy do I feel sheepish. :blkeye:  I thought @goon175 cornered the market on satire.


----------



## JHD (Nov 28, 2013)

TLDR20 said:


> That response was a clearly satirical view of her thought process.



After four glasses of Pinot noir, I bestow the honor of my first hate ever to you...however, I do appreciate the opposing point of view...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 28, 2013)

Sorry if this is a repost.....








I'm sure it will all buff out....:-"


----------



## Cody (Nov 28, 2013)

:wall: I pay taxes for this?


----------



## Brill (Nov 29, 2013)

Quality yucks!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...necology_cracks_down_on_ob_gyns_treating.html


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 12, 2013)

Well, this is a glowing endorsement.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-trust-obamacare-site-info/?intcmp=latestnews



> Congressional staffers were warned Wednesday not to rely on information provided by the ObamaCare exchange website, in an email alert informing them they might not be enrolled for coverage even if they technically signed up.
> The "very important" message, sent to Capitol Hill officials Wednesday afternoon, is the latest sign that the government has concerns about the reliability of the system. Despite improvements in the basic operation of the exchange websites, and increased enrollment, there are lingering concerns about whether those signing up will actually be covered on Jan. 1.
> 
> "Please DO NOT ASSUME you are covered unless you have seen the Confirmation Letter from the Disbursing Office!" the email to staffers said.
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 20, 2013)

I guess we know now what constitutes the "change" in Hope and Change.  Anything this administration feels like doing with Obamacare at the drop of a hat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/20/administration-announces-new-obamacare-exemption/




> Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius confirmed the changes, which include letting those individuals skirt the law's individual mandate, in a letter to senators. She said she would allow people who got cancellations and could not find affordable new coverage to qualify for a "hardship exemption" in order to avoid a penalty next year for not having insurance.
> Further, she announced that those individuals will be able to purchase bare-bones plans that until now were available only for people under 30.
> The move, though, to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for "catastrophic" coverage plans was criticized by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause "tremendous instability.”


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 20, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I guess we know now what constitutes the "change" in Hope and Change.  Anything this administration feels like doing with Obamacare at the drop of a hat.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/20/administration-announces-new-obamacare-exemption/


The Insurance Industry gets no pity from me.

They saw this as a cash cow, and embraced it without knowing the details.

STBT!


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 20, 2013)

But wasn't it part of the point of Obamacare to do away with all of those "worthless" policies?


----------



## Dame (Dec 20, 2013)

And the website is now "down for maintenance" just ahead of the deadline.


----------



## Muppet (Dec 20, 2013)

I am moving to Madagascar! I'm out bitches!

F.M.


----------



## 0699 (Dec 20, 2013)

SOWT said:


> The Insurance Industry gets no pity from me.
> 
> *They saw this as a cash cow*, and embraced it without knowing the details.
> 
> STBT!


 
This is why the "insurance industry" fully supported the ACA...

When I heard that, I was instantly suspisious.  It's like GM supporting a law that everyone has to buy a GM car.


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 20, 2013)

0699 said:


> This is why the "insurance industry" fully supported the ACA...
> 
> When I heard that, I was instantly suspisious.  It's like GM supporting a law that everyone has to buy a GM car.


Wait..dont YOU own a GM vehicle?  Hmmmmm?


----------



## 0699 (Dec 20, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Wait..dont YOU own a GM vehicle?  Hmmmmm?


 
_(Insert Evil Laugh)_


----------



## Chopstick (Dec 21, 2013)

0699 said:


> _(Insert Evil Laugh)_


Pfffft...I know that is the only laugh you have.


----------



## JHD (Dec 24, 2013)

Another side effect of Obamacare, intended or unintended?  This debacle continues to look worse every day.



http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamacare-shock-strip-assets-dead-seniors/



> The government has long been permitted to seek reimbursement for healthcare services by attaching the assets of deceased Medicaid enrollees. But before ObamaCare, an asset test was mandatory for Medicaid applicants and only those with few or no assets could qualify for government provided care. As a result, there was little of value which the state could attach after death.
> 
> ObamaCare, however, has done away with the asset test. Eligibility for Medicaid is now dependent only upon income. And at 138% of the federal poverty mark, that eligibility level is much higher than in previous years. Therefore, countless Americans who have accumulated valuable assets yet show little income will now qualify as Medicaid recipients.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 3, 2014)

Another Healthcare.gov "success" story.  

http://www.pottsmerc.com/general-news/20140102/pa-issues-warning-over-medicaid-file-problems



> Gov. Tom Corbett’s office is issuing a note of caution to thousands of people who applied for health insurance through the federally run website Healthcare.gov and were found to be eligible or potentially eligible for Medicaid.
> Corbett’s office said this week that the federal government has had trouble transferring the electronic files of more than 25,000 applications to the state’s Medicaid agency, and the applicants may find out they’re not enrolled.
> 
> It says people who applied through Healthcare.gov and were found eligible or potentially eligible for Medicaid can expect to receive a call from the federal Health Insurance Marketplace Call Center.
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 3, 2014)

JHD said:


> Another side effect of Obamacare, intended or unintended?  This debacle continues to look worse every day.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.westernjournalism.com/obamacare-shock-strip-assets-dead-seniors/


Actually a good deal for the government.

ACA allows the government to seize estates after death for payment, people think they are putting one over the feds and their heirs watch the estate load up and head to DC.

I'm cool with this.


----------



## JHD (Jan 3, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Actually a good deal for the government.
> 
> ACA allows the government to seize estates after death for payment, people think they are putting one over the feds and their heirs watch the estate load up and head to DC.
> 
> I'm cool with this.



If Obamacare hadn't done away with the asset test to qualify for Medicaid, I wouldn't be opposed either.  I am fine with the govt being repaid in some way after the person passes away.  I don't like the way this happened though.  Now, with just the income test, many more people now fall under Medicaid coverage.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 3, 2014)

Another little "glitch" or two...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nt-handle-info-on-newborns/?intcmp=latestnews



> In the latest glitch to emerge regarding the Affordable Care Act system, health officials are telling new enrollees that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to update their coverage online to reflect the birth of a baby and other life changes.
> 
> Instead, parents are being told to contact insurers directly, and then contact the government later on -- when the system is ready to handle it.
> 
> Parents will still be able to get new babies covered, but the missing feature on the website represents another step, and just one of several glitches that continue to surface. In certain states, problems have also prevented thousands of would-be Medicaid enrollees from getting coverage.





> But another problem, with Medicaid, was surfacing after the launch. In West Virginia, The Charleston Gazette reports that a glitch caused problems for 18,000 people trying to sign up for coverage.
> 
> Of them, 10,000 tried to go through HealthCare.gov but were told they qualified for Medicaid. However, the website reportedly transferred basic files to state officials -- lacking information needed to sign them up for the government program.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 5, 2014)

Although they say they dont yet know the actual source of the problem, it makes you wonder.  It has been a bad week for folks with Medicaid under the new Obamacare rules.
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2014/01/04/49000-nc-medicaid-cards-mailed-to-wrong-addresses/



> North Carolina health officials said Friday that they had inadvertently disclosed the personal information of tens of thousands of children receiving Medicaid coverage, but were tight-lipped about precisely what caused the massive privacy breach.
> The state Department of Health and Human Services issued a written release saying that new Medicaid cards for nearly 49,000 children were mailed on Dec. 30 to the wrong people. The information on the cards includes the children’s names, Medicaid identification numbers, dates of birth and the names of their primary care doctors — personal medical data that is supposed to be tightly protected under federal law.





> New federal eligibility rules starting Jan. 1 under the Affordable Care Act allowed the agency to shift medical coverage for more than 70,000 children of low-income families from the state-paid NC Health Choice program to Medicaid.
> 
> Diaz said the agency is investigating how the cards were addressed to the wrong people. He said the mistake did not involve either NCTracks or NC FAST, a pair of new problem-plagued computer systems that handle Medicaid enrollments and payments.
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 5, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Although they say they dont yet know the actual source of the problem, it makes you wonder.  It has been a bad week for folks with Medicaid under the new Obamacare rules.
> http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2014/01/04/49000-nc-medicaid-cards-mailed-to-wrong-addresses/


Nice to see HPPA being followed.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 5, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Nice to see HPPA being followed.


This is like the "Fast and Furious" of the Healthcare world.  SMH.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 10, 2014)

I wonder if this will work out any better...it is only costing 90 Million for the next year...so far...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1eb05a-719e-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.html



> The Obama administration has decided to jettison CGI Federal, the main IT contractor that was responsible for building the defect-ridden online health insurance marketplace and has been immersed in the work of repairing it.
> Federal health officials are preparing to sign a 12-month contract worth roughly $90 million, probably early next week, with a different company, Accenture, after concluding that CGI has not been effective enough in fixing the intricate computer system underpinning the federal Web site, HealthCare.gov, according to a person familiar with the matter.


----------



## AWP (Jan 10, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> This is like the "Fast and Furious" of the Healthcare world.  SMH.



How many Federal LEO's has the ACA killed to date?


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 11, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> How many Federal LEO's has the ACA killed to date?


How would we know?  HIPAA and all.


----------



## Chopstick (Jan 18, 2014)

Hmmmmmmm.

Most ObamaCare enrollees already had health plans, report says.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-health-plans-report-says/?intcmp=latestnews



> The majority of the more than 2 million Americans who signed up for health insurance under ObamaCare through the end of December were already enrolled in employer-sponsored plans or had previously bought their own coverage, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
> 
> Early data from insurers, brokers and consultants suggest that the marketplaces are popular with consumers who were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about a law intended to expand coverage to millions of healthy, uninsured Americans to help offset costs.
> 
> ...





> Insurers in Michigan expected 400,000 of the state's 1.2 million uninsured people to join private plans this year, according to an analysis provided Michigan-based Priority Health. As of the end of December, only 76,000 people had signed up, many of whom were previously covered, according to the report.
> 
> "I don't know we're growing the number of people with insurance here, so much as we're just adding complexity," Geoff Bartsh, vice president for policy at Minneapolis-based Medica Health Plans told the Journal.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 10, 2014)

Aaaaaaand another delay!
http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/10/obamacare-employer-mandate-delay/



> The Obama administration announced Monday that certain employers will have extra time to comply with the new health care reform law’s requirement that they provide health insurance to workers, the latest of many deadlines extended and rules tweaked during the law’s rollout.
> 
> In a final rule issued by the Treasury Department, officials said that employers with 50 to 99 workers will not be required to offer health coverage until 2016.





> The Treasury Department also said Monday that employers subject to the mandate in 2015 will only need to cover 70 percent of workers to be in compliance with the law. The previous threshold was 95 percent, which officials said will now apply beginning in 2016 instead.
> 
> The rollout of the new health care law has been marred by other delays as well. A new health insurance exchange for small businesses has been put off. Some health policies expected to end in 2014 because they were not in compliance with new ACA rules have been allowed to continue. And many consumers whose policies have been canceled have been exempted from the law’s requirement to have coverage this year.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 10, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Aaaaaaand another delay!
> http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/10/obamacare-employer-mandate-delay/


March 2014 is weighing heavily on their minds.


----------



## Gypsy (Feb 11, 2014)

SOWT said:


> March 2014 is weighing heavily on their minds.


 
I don't think this will really help them.  I hope every one of those fuckers who voted for this beast get ousted.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 15, 2014)

And more "good news" for people with pre-existing conditions.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-existing-diseases-could-face-expensive-drug/



> She starts by saying, "I voted for Barack Obama for president. I thought ObamaCare was going to be a good thing."
> But Emilie Lamb says she later got a letter saying her insurance was canceled because of ObamaCare, pushing her premiums from $52 to $373 a month.
> "I'm having to work a second job, to pay for ObamaCare,” she adds. “For somebody with lupus, that's not an easy thing. If I can't afford to continue to pay for ObamaCare, I don't get my medicine. I don't get to see my doctors."
> One of the problems is that drugs for some diseases such as MS do not have generic versions. So without cheaper alternatives and no help from ObamaCare, patients could face huge personal out-of-pocket bills, forcing some to skimp on their medications.





> Some say ObamaCare hoped to do better on that problem but ran out of time. Matthew Eyles of Avalare Health, a consulting firm, says although officials wanted "to be able to make sure that all the systems were operational in 2014, they realized that they needed to give an extra year to get those systems changes in place."
> Officials intend to try again next year.


----------



## Brill (Feb 15, 2014)

They should pay more because they present a "higher risk" for payout by the insurance company.  Only a socialist would believe the healthy should carry the sick or the rich should pay their fair share.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 15, 2014)

I dont see where  it is feasible to block people from drugs that they have had covered prior.  As stated many of these drugs have no generic equivalent.  I dont happen to have 62k a year laying around for meds.  I dont know many who do.  Hopefully I wont be diagnosed with MS anytime soon.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 15, 2014)

I just don't see how someone with such a bad pre-existing condition was paying 52 dollars a month.. Something doesn't add up there, because most 52 dollar a month insurance plans do not cover brand name drugs, or drugs period.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 15, 2014)

Things like this beg for fact checking, "One of the problems is that drugs for some diseases such as MS do not have generic versions. So without cheaper alternatives and no help from ObamaCare, patients could face huge personal out-of-pocket bills, forcing some to skimp on their medications." 

Also it highlights that her premiums went up, I wonder what happened to her deductible, and other things, this may also force us to lower the amount of time a drug can remain a non generic, which I think would be a good thing.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 15, 2014)

Well apparently now that she is paying 363 a month it still doesnt cover.  That is the very issue with Obamacare...alot of things dont add up.



ETA saw this letter by Ms. Lamb.  I wonder if she just stopped working altogether, claim disability due to her health issues instead of working 2 jobs she would be better off.

http://nypost.com/2014/02/03/betrayed-by-the-president-and-obamacare/


----------



## Brill (Feb 26, 2014)

Clearly the President misspoke here:

“We’re going to make a big push these last few weeks,” Mr. Obama said, to a crowd of Obamacare volunteers at a Tuesday evening Organizing for Action event in Washington, D.C., reported by Politico. “I can talk, my team can talk here in Washington, but it’s not going to make as much of a difference as if you are out there making the case. The work you’re doing is *God’s* work. It is hard work.”

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...e-volunteers-youre-doing-gods-/#ixzz2uTcAj34E 

Surely he meant Allah.


----------



## JHD (Feb 26, 2014)

Talked to a lady today whose husband's company lost their insurance due to Obamacare.  Family of six, and she and her husband are relatively young.  Their new premiums through the new insurance company went up $600/monthly, and they have a $2,500 deductible.  Her husband set up a flexible spending account to pay for the deductible.  Yes, Obamacare really helped them, too.


----------



## Dame (Feb 27, 2014)

lindy said:


> Clearly the President misspoke here:
> 
> _Snip _"The work you’re doing is *God’s* work. It is hard work.”
> 
> Surely he meant Allah.



I disagree. He was clearly speaking of himself.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 27, 2014)

Another fine Obamacare navigator quietly fired. 

http://www.iwf.org/news/2793287/Convicted-Terrorist-Worked-as-Obamacare-Navigator-in-Illinois-


> A terrorist from Jordan briefly worked as an Obamacare navigator in Illinois while authorities remained unaware of her conviction for involvement in a deadly grocery store bombing and two other attacks





> The Illinois Department of Insurance quietly revoked Odeh’s certification as a Navigator In-Person Counselor on November 24, explaining in a disciplinary report that the decision was “based on an investigation which revealed that she had been convicted in Israel for her role in the bombings of a supermarket and the British Consulate in Jerusalem and failed to reveal the conviction on her application.”
> 
> The Illinois DOI conducts background checks on navigators. National Review Online obtained the comprehensive Federal Bureau of Investigation background report for Odeh, which does not note any past criminal offenses.
> 
> According to the director of insurance’s Oct. 25, 2013, revocation letter, the Department of Insurance found out about Odeh’s history after the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Michigan, notified the public about her prior convictions.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 27, 2014)

I'm on my phone, so I'll have to come back with the link after chem lab, but let's not forget Harry Reid saying yesterday that every last one of these highly publicized Obamacare failures is a work of fiction. A lie. Never happened. A tool for the loyal opposition to make POTUS look bad.

Yeah, I feel bad for the NV folks who voted against that assclown.


----------



## Dame (Feb 27, 2014)

I could not believe that. The Senate Majority Leader calling any American who lost their healthcare and/or whose premiums rose as a result of this law, a liar.

Harry Reid has never been a scrupulous individual. But this level of insult to the American people has got to be unprecedented.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 27, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> I'm on my phone, so I'll have to come back with the link after chem lab, but let's not forget Harry Reid saying yesterday that every last one of these highly publicized Obamacare failures is a work of fiction. A lie. Never happened. A tool for the loyal opposition to make POTUS look bad.
> 
> Yeah, I feel bad for the NV folks who voted against that assclown.



Fact checker looked into that statement... http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...vast-majority-of-afps-obamacare-ads-are-lies/


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 27, 2014)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-victims-liars-says-top-104500644.html



> Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Harry Reid’s dismissal of Boonstra’s pain was entirely justified. What about the pain of Catherine Blackwood, who also lost her insurance due to Obamacare and lost coverage for her cancer medication as a result?
> 
> Her previous insurance covered Sandostatin as a treatment for her terminal carcinoid. But despite being repeatedly assured during the problem-plagued enrollment process that her new Obamacare-approved plan would cover the drug, she found out this month _as she was going into surgery_ that her plan would not cover the drug. It costs $14,000 just since the beginning of the year, and now Blackwood will have to cover it all herself.
> 
> ...





> Given the rapidly escalating costs for providing insurance, even the penalties for opting out of coverage for employees will not stop many from bailing out of group coverage. If so, many more will end up experiencing the same pain as Boonstra, Blackwood, Cadman, and Taylor.
> 
> Harry Reid and the Democrats can keep ignoring that pain at their own electoral peril. It’s amazing how quickly they have gone from feeling our pain to causing it, and then trying to convince us that pain doesn’t actually hurt anyone. Not even Bill Clinton can sell that nonsense.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 27, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Fact checker looked into that statement... http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...vast-majority-of-afps-obamacare-ads-are-lies/



Two Pinocchios. Compared to four Pinocchios on a regular basis coming from POTUS, or pants on fire? On that scale, two Pinocchios isn't all that bad. At least WaPo acknowledged that Reid was overboard, and that at least one ad was pretty truthful (as far as ads go).

Personally, WaPo only has its age to lend it what little credibility it has left, in my opinion.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 27, 2014)

http://kelly.house.gov/press-releas...ry-reid-attacking-integrity-obamacare-victims



> WASHINGTON — Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) – a member of the House Ways and Means Committee – issued the following statement today in response to the false claim made yesterday in a floor speech by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that in regard to the “horror stories being told” about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), “All of them are untrue.”
> 
> “Just when I thought the Leader of the Senate couldn’t possibly become more out of touch with the American people, he regrettably proves me wrong. By claiming that all of the tragic stories currently unfolding from coast are coast due to Obamacare are somehow fake, Harry Reid is attacking the integrity of countless victims of a terrible law that he helped force onto a country that never wanted it. Having heard from so many of my constituents about the personal consequences that the health care law is having on their lives, I cannot help but find Mr. Reid’s remarks profoundly insulting. Perhaps if he truly believes what he has said, he could pick up the phone and console those in my District injured by the law – from a mother and daughter in Hermitage to a small business owner in Fairview to a waitress in Butler – and convince them that all their higher premiums, reduced hours, and cancelled plans are just the products of their imagination. Otherwise, he should reconsider his offensive charge and confront the brutal effects that Obamacare is having on our nation and work with my colleagues to forge a solution."



And then there is this.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 27, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> http://kelly.house.gov/press-releas...ry-reid-attacking-integrity-obamacare-victims
> 
> 
> 
> And then there is this.



Interesting.  I like how Rep Kelly embedded linked to an article that embedded (<---edited) the CSPAN2 clip which caught Reid dead to rights saying what he said.  After a second reading of the WaPo fact checker article, the question that comes to my mind is this: if you take away all the ads that the OMIGODEVILKOCHBROTHERS!!!!! (yes, you're supposed to yell that obnoxiously loud and in one breath, preferably with enough airborne spittle as to warrant a diagnostic exam for rabies) financed, and actually sent reporters out to the people who were adversely affected by the newly implemented ACA regulations, at what point would the "Oh, that's just anecdotal, show me some facts" line become bullshit.  At which point do the anecdotes become facts?  Oh, yeah, I forgot, that would be NEVER because if you call yourself a journalist then you have an agenda.

While one can hope that objectivity has something in common with a coelocanth, I think it has more in common with the dodo or passenger pigeon.


----------



## Brill (Feb 27, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Fact checker looked into that statement... http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...vast-majority-of-afps-obamacare-ads-are-lies/



Fact checker look into the tax vs penalty?  Admin maintains it's a penalty but SCOTUS says tax whereas restaurants and the like say it's a customer surcharge.

Pinocchio would call it a screw job!


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 27, 2014)

lindy said:


> Pinocchio would call it a screw job!



I'm a real boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now show me on the doll where the mean politician touched you...


----------



## AWP (Feb 27, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> Now show me on the doll where the mean politician touched you...


 
You know how if you were asked to point at your location on a map, you couldn't use your finger? Too big, use a pine needle, etc.?

So I pointed at the doll with a telephone pole....


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 28, 2014)

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...fp-ad-featuring-yet-another-obamacare-victim/

Adding context to an attack ad.


----------



## Dame (Feb 28, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/f...fp-ad-featuring-yet-another-obamacare-victim/
> 
> Adding context to an attack ad.



What bullshit. Two Pinocchios? Because someone thought this was an isolated incident? It's still true. The context they find lacking is an example of what makes this even worse! This woman had worked out a way to keep her own costs down but by Obamacare standards she should be paying more for that care.

Shit like this just makes me madder.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 28, 2014)

Dame said:


> What bullshit. Two Pinocchios? Because someone thought this was an isolated incident? It's still true. The context they find lacking is an example of what makes this even worse! This woman had worked out a way to keep her own costs down but by Obamacare standards she should be paying more for that care.
> 
> Shit like this just makes me madder.



She was on government subsidized healthcare before. The context matters because if people knew she was on subsidized care before her story wouldn't ring out as well.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> She was on government subsidized healthcare before. The context matters because if people knew she was on subsidized care before her story wouldn't ring out as well.


No different then subsidized recipients telling eveyone how affordable it is.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 28, 2014)

SOWT said:


> No different then subsidized recipients telling eveyone how affordable it is.



I agree, but wouldn't it have been honest if she had said why her insurance was so dang cheap?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 28, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I agree, but wouldn't it have been honest if she had said why her insurance was so dang cheap?



Yes, that's whyI said it was no different.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 28, 2014)

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan".


----------



## Dame (Feb 28, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> She was on government subsidized healthcare before. The context matters because if people knew she was on subsidized care before her story wouldn't ring out as well.


I now know and think she was doing a better job than if her employer was just picking up the tab before. That's my point. She was helping to manage her costs by working with her doctors. Obamacare screwed her over.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 28, 2014)

[


Dame said:


> I now know and think she was doing a better job than if her employer was just picking up the tab before. That's my point. She was helping to manage her costs by working with her doctors. Obamacare screwed her over.



I thought you were against govt healthcare? She had healthcare through her state .


----------



## Dame (Feb 28, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> [
> I thought you were against govt healthcare? She had healthcare through her state .



I'm against stupidity.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2014)

I wonder if Reid will acknowledge this challenge?
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/02/2...ze-after-he-says-obamacare-horror-stories-are



> “I’d like [Reid] to put his money where his mouth is,” Benthal said. “I’d like him to pay $30,000 dollars to the Angioma Alliance and make that donation, and apologize to me and to the American people.”


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 1, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> I wonder if Reid will acknowledge this challenge?
> http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/02/2...ze-after-he-says-obamacare-horror-stories-are



I hope not, I think that would set a bad precedent.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I hope not, I think that would set a bad precedent.


What?  Having politicians give up their piece of the pie for the rest of us?  I thought that was exactly what Michelle Obama was preaching. Consider it Harry Reid's contribution 


> They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach. If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
> - Michelle Obama


----------



## Brill (Mar 1, 2014)

^^^
FLOTUS just highlighted her Marxist ideology.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2014)

Not to worry, the good Citizens of Maryland are ponying up more pie. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-add-up-with-maryland-first-at-estimated-305/



> Maryland could end up spending as much as $30.5 million as a result of a glitch in its ObamaCare website, as the Obama administration steps in to help states with problematic exchanges.
> 
> Because of Maryland’s defective exchange, the state cannot determine whether customers remain eligible for Medicaid, according to a report by state budget analysts released Thursday.
> 
> As a result, the state has agreed with the federal government to a six-month delay in determining eligibility, meaning that payments will continue to be made to customers who are not eligible until the system is fixed. The delay will cost the state $17.8 million in fiscal 2014 and $12.7 million in fiscal 2015, the analysts estimated.


----------



## Brill (Mar 1, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Not to worry, the good Citizens of Maryland are ponying up more pie.
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-add-up-with-maryland-first-at-estimated-305/



WHAT?!?!?


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2014)

lindy said:


> WHAT?!?!?


More glitches= mo'money!


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 1, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> What?  Having politicians give up their piece of the pie for the rest of us?  I thought that was exactly what Michelle Obama was preaching. Consider it Harry Reid's contribution



You are comparing taxation to donation.  She is saying that taxation should be different, you are saying he should just donate his money to someone he has never met.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> You are comparing taxation to donation.  She is saying that taxation should be different, you are saying he should just give up his money to someone he has never met.


Yep.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 1, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Yep.



Sigh.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 1, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Sigh.


Sigh all you want. Maybe a little good will for a change ...Reid taking one for the team if you will,  would make some headway for his party in the elections?  What is 30 K to that guy?  Chump change.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 1, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> You are comparing taxation to donation.  She is saying that taxation should be different, you are saying he should just donate his money to someone he has never met.


I never met the taxman, but I seem to donate a lot of money to him.

Taxes=Government spending my money as they see fit.
Donation = me spending my money as I see fit.

Give me more say and I'll gladly pay some extra, but I (and the majority of Obama's supporters) have no say.


----------



## JHD (Mar 1, 2014)

lindy said:


> WHAT?!?!?



Sometimes it sux to live in this state.  Taxes, taxes, more taxes.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 2, 2014)

You know shit is getting real when New Orleans has not one but TWO anti-Obamacare floats for Mardi-Gras! 
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2...loats-spotted-mardi-gras-liberal-new-orleans/


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 2, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> You know shit is getting real when New Orleans has not one but TWO anti-Obamacare floats for Mardi-Gras!
> http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2...loats-spotted-mardi-gras-liberal-new-orleans/


Maybe, doesn't say which Parades they were "in".

Not saying it didn't happen, but I'd need to know which parade they were in.


----------



## Brill (Mar 7, 2014)

Fine, penalty, tax is 1% but increases to 2.5% of adjusted gross income in 2016.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/acacalculator.cfm


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 7, 2014)




----------



## Chopstick (Mar 10, 2014)

This is a report by "Unite Here" a union organization representing workers throughout the U.S. and Canada who work in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, and airport industries.

http://cdn.ralstonreports.com/sites/default/files/ObamaCaretoAFL_FINAL.pdf



> “Having already made efforts to accommodate businesses, churches and congressional staff, it is ironic that the administration is now highlighting issues of economic inequality without acting to preserve health plans that have been achieving the goals of the ACA for decades,” the report concludes. “Without a smart fix, the ACA will heighten the inequality that the Administration seeks to reduce … We cannot sit idly by as the politicians carve up our health plans while they carve out exceptions for themselves and every special interest feeding at the trough in Washington.”


----------



## gunny44 (Mar 10, 2014)

lindy said:


> ^^^
> FLOTUS just highlighted her Marxist ideology.


That is exactly what it is and she is not the only progressive eating away at our basic beliefs this nation was based upon. Obama care is about nothing more than being a trojan horse for the redistribution of wealth


----------



## JHD (Mar 10, 2014)

Jimmy Kimmel Savages ObamaCare and Uninformed Young People Who Support It

Conceivably the best job done to date was by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel who during his opening monologueTuesday evening absolutely savaged the law whilst ridiculing the uninformed young people in this country that have ignorantly supported something that clearly harms them (video follows with transcript and commentary):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...macare-and-uninformed-young-people-who-suppor


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2014)

If you like your penis pump, you can keep your penis pump.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 10, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> If you like your penis pump, you can keep your penis pump.


says FF's right hand.


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2014)

SOWT said:


> says FF's right hand.


 
Pffttt! My ED cleared up once I learned about pregnant and lactating midgets. As the kids would say, those videos are "off the chain."


----------



## Dame (Mar 10, 2014)

SOWT said:


> says FF's right hand.





Freefalling said:


> Pffttt! My ED cleared up once I learned about pregnant and lactating midgets. As the kids would say, those videos are "off the chain."


Get a room, you two.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 12, 2014)

Here's something I'd like to know:

How many of you are against subsidized health insurance itself (or some kind of different health insurance reform), and how many of you like the idea, but not the ACA?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 12, 2014)

I think the entire system needs some rework, the FDA specifically fucks a lot of shit up due to either governmental immunity for specific medications or making the process to get things approved absurdly expensive to go through, which stymies the ability for both innovation and classical "Free market" ability to get the same or equivalent products for a cheaper price by being able to shop around. If the majority of procedures and equipment were able to be manufactured cheaper due to not having a limited amount of actual points of entry into the market for both diagnostic and definitive care?  You'd see health insurance which is a byproduct of those specific factors (since nobody here save a few could pay out of pocket for any major anything) costs, plummet.

That's where the government needs to unfuck their dickbeaters in the process. Not trying to ramrod the shit at everyone and classically governmental result of making a jeffrey dahmer long pig and chicken noodle hoagie out of the mess.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Here's something I'd like to know:
> 
> How many of you are against subsidized health insurance itself (or some kind of different health insurance reform), and how many of you like the idea, but not the ACA?


I am not against subsidized healthcare; that is why we have MediCare and MedicAid.

Those programs could have been expanded.

ACA needs a post-birth abortion.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 12, 2014)

SOWT said:


> I am not against subsidized healthcare; that is why we have MediCare and MedicAid.
> Those programs could have been expanded.


To be fair, the ACA DID expand Medicaid.

Should it have been expanded further?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 12, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> To be fair, the ACA DID expand Medicaid.
> 
> Should it have been expanded further?



Not every state took the expansion, as FedGov was going to push the cost of the expansion onto each state after the first few years. Not every state could afford to absorb that cost once FedGov wasn't paying for it (for a similar scenario, look at states/municipalities who hired LEO's with FedGov grants and couldn't afford to pay for them after the grants ran out).

I agree with RP about traditional free market forces having been shunted out of the medical industry. That, however, is slowly changing in some locations.  Example: two weeks ago, my aunt had to get an MRI, and for the life of her was floored to see that the cost of the MRI for an out of pocket payment was less than the price that was submitted for payment to her insurance company (I'd have to dig through IM logs to find the exact numbers). I have read the occasional news article talking about that phenomenon; however, this was my first time seeing it happen to someone I know.

There's a lot to be fixed within the medical industry with regards to bringing costs down (tort reform, perhaps). Even if cost of medical services were lower, there would still be some in need of subsidized care. I'm in favor of that. The ACA, however, is a botched abortion of a law that needs to be given the "Ol' Yeller" treatment.

ETA: Her copayment for the MRI was going to be $900. If she paid for it while bypassing any kind of insurance (a la carte, for lack of a better term this early), the cost of the whole procedure would've been $475.


----------



## JHD (Mar 12, 2014)

Agree with RP and RK.  The billing issue is astounding.  Has happened to me also on some chiropractic care issues, as well.  

Also, I get that funding of groundbreaking drugs for AIDS, etc., is going to be a costly endeavor.  But when the drugs are brought to market, the US citizen pays exorbitant fees while we basically give the drugs away to other countries.  We could probably do a better job of managing this issue with our aid packages we have with those countries.  We shouldn't foot the bill for the whole world.

Abort Obamacare.  Passing that legislation was a disservice to the country.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> To be fair, the ACA DID expand Medicaid.
> 
> Should it have been expanded further?


No, ACA should have paid for that expansion.

Most people were happy with their insurance.

ACA should have just targeted those people who didn't have insurance, get ObamaCare, get a Private Policy, qualify for MediCare/MedicAid.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 12, 2014)

While Obamacare is a mess.  I think it can server the purpose of getting more people insured which will minimally bring down costs.  Will it ever bring down healthcare cost substantially, no.

They're reasons why the VA pays 1/2 as much for the same drug as Medicare.  They're reasons why drugs can be purchased cheaper in Canada by Americans then they can buy at home.

Obamacare isn't the long term answer for reforming our healthcare system.  Change will come though because it has to.  We are spending nearly 18% of GDP on healthcare.  The next closest comparable countries are Canada, Germany and France spending 11%.  We would have budget surpluses today if we spent what they did.  The worse part is we are 46th on the list for Efficient health care systems.  Only Switzerland pays more per capita then the US but the higher cost per person still only amounts to 11% of Switzerland GDP.  We pay $8608 to rank 46 in the world.  Canada pays $5630 and they rank 17.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 12, 2014)

Scotth said:


> While Obamacare is a mess.  I think it can server the purpose of getting more people insured which will minimally bring down costs.  Will it ever bring down healthcare cost substantially, no.
> 
> They're reasons why the VA pays 1/2 as much for the same drug as Medicare.  They're reasons why drugs can be purchased cheaper in Canada by Americans then they can buy at home.
> 
> ...


5% of Texans have signed up. (per today's paper)

Obamacare did not include tort reform, which adds to costs.
Obamacare caps money going into the Dr, but doesn't cap any of the providers expenses.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 12, 2014)

SOWT said:


> 5% of Texans have signed up. (per today's paper)
> 
> Obamacare did not include tort reform, which adds to costs.
> Obamacare caps money going into the Dr, but doesn't cap any of the providers expenses.



States that actively got involved in setting up health care exchanges have seen much better results then states that didn't try to make the system work.
This link has an interesting map that you can scroll around to see what different states have done.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-enrollment-map-best-worst-states

According to the CBO tort reform would have a minimal impact.
_CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billionin 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-tort_reform.pdf

Obamacare takes money away from the Medicare Advantage program which is the doc fix that everyone is talking about.  The House Republican's have proposed and voted each year for those same exact cuts  in Ryan's budget plan.  They try to beat up Obama for cutting Medicare one day and the next day say he isn't doing enough to cut entitlement spending all the while they propose the same exact dollars as Obama.

That doc fix was implemented during Bush's years and came about because Republican's created the Medicare Advantage plan back in '98 when they wanted to show how the private sector could do it better and cheaper then Medicare could but by 2000 health insurers were leaving the program because they couldn't make enough money.  So when the Republican's did their reform during the Bush years all they did was upped the reimbursement levels paid to the health care companies to the point it made huge money for insurance providers.  The problem was we didn't get anything in return for the increased spending it simply made it profitable for insurance providers to have a Medicare Advantage program.  Additionally, the cost for that increased spending was never paid for so all it did was drain the whole Medicare system faster.

Not fixing the doctor reimbursement will certainly kill the Medicare Advantage program but might help the overall Medicare system._


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 12, 2014)

You should've put in a caveat for Oregon, dude. Their state exchange ain't working out for nothin'.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 12, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> You should've put in a caveat for Oregon, dude. Their state exchange ain't working out for nothin'.



Go to the link I provided.  Oregon has over 16% enrollment.  Certainly not nearly what their neighbors have but better then Texas 5%.  Maybe they had roll out problems like the Fed but they seem to have decent numbers when compared to the majority of states?


----------



## Brill (Mar 12, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Here's something I'd like to know:
> 
> How many of you are against subsidized health *insurance* itself (or some kind of different health *insurance* reform), and how many of you like the idea, but not the ACA?



ACA is not being run like insurance otherwise risk for payout would be tied to price of premiums as would incentives to reduce risk (annual check ups, gym membership, non-smoking, etc).

Scrap ACA and start over...or just delay parts of implementation to appease political donors and to win more party votes.  ACA is about a legacy and zero about the American people.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 12, 2014)

So you're forgetting the part where they couldn't enroll anyone for the first month and a half? Their state exchange launch made the FedGov launch look flawless.

I would hardly call them having much better results, as their ineptitude was almost criminal.

You're looking at numbers, I'm looking at bigger picture.

Eta: I'd have phrased your premise differently if I were you.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 12, 2014)

I thought about making this a second edit, but it was better served making it a separate reply. When you look at the 16% figure, the actual number of people that represents 16% is only just over 100,000. Considering the national goal by the end of March was supposed to be 7 million people?

Also, according to the Oregon Live web site, Oregon's exchange is still fraught with problems, not least of which is the inability to sign up in one visit. 



> The Cover Oregon health insurance exchange is one of the worst in the country at attracting younger enrollees, according to a new federal report.
> 
> Only 18 percent of those who've enrolled through the Oregon exchange fall between the ages of 18-34, a healthier age bracket considered crucial to keeping future premiums down. The age-related datafor Oregon is available for the first time.
> 
> The Oregon number, which ties with West Virginia as the nation's worst, falls well below the national average of 25 percent. The national goal was about 40 percent. Exchange officials and insurers had expected a higher portion of enrollees would be young, and premiums were set accordingly.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 12, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> So you're forgetting the part where they couldn't enroll anyone for the first month and a half? Their state exchange launch made the FedGov launch look flawless.
> 
> I would hardly call them having much better results, as their ineptitude was almost criminal.
> 
> ...



I'm sure your right.  I don't know the particular's of what is happening in 49 states.  I only know what's happening in my own state.

I know we had problems for the state roll out.  Not as bad as the feds but far from smooth.  The head of the state program ended up resigning because she decided to take a 2 week vacation to Mexico right after the roll out.  So when we had issues she was out of the country.  She got a pink slip when she got back from vacation.


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2014)

Healthcare reform for a "special interest group" (those that didn't have it)?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/curl-we-completely-overhauled-american-health-care/

"President Obama said it in August 2009: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”

He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.”

So, he created Obamacare. The crux of the biscuit: *The United States would completely change its entire health care system to make sure those 46 million got insured.* Well, at least that’s what every rational American thought. If there are 46 million uninsured, and the president and Congress are overhauling the system, it must be to solve the whole problem — not just part of it.

But last week came word that with just 15 days left for people to enroll for federal coverage,* just 4.2 million had.* *The math is simple: That’s just 9 percent of the supposedly 46 million uninsured."*


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2014)




----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 17, 2014)

lindy said:


> Healthcare reform for a "special interest group" (those that didn't have it)?
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/curl-we-completely-overhauled-american-health-care/
> 
> ...



Yes while only 4.2 million people have joined via healthcare.gov, another 2.2 million Americans received insurance through their parents insurance plans, 2.4 Million are new enrollees to medicare, and some states are saying that up to 1/3 of their new insurance enrollments are happening outside of the exchange(which is still legal). So that adds up to at least 8.8 million people having coverage who did not previously have it. While that is still a very low number, it is more than twice what is claimed in the editorial you posted.


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Yes while only 4.2 million people have joined via healthcare.gov, another 2.2 million Americans received insurance through their parents insurance plans, 2.4 Million are new enrollees to medicare, and some states are saying that up to 1/3 of their new insurance enrollments are happening outside of the exchange(which is still legal). So that adds up to at least 8.8 million people having coverage who did not previously have it. While that is still a very low number, it is more than twice what is claimed in the editorial you posted.



Good point!  I wish the Admin would "advertise" figures like that in order to give a more accurate picture.  I would also appreciate stats on the numbers of people who were "authorized" delays in compliance to the "law of the land".

Wish this was all on C-SPAN.


----------



## JHD (Mar 17, 2014)

All for $1.5 trillion and counting


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 17, 2014)

JHD said:


> All for $1.5 trillion and counting


Where are you getting that figure from?


----------



## JHD (Mar 17, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Where are you getting that figure from?



The estimates of $1.5 trillion additional Federal spending anticipated by the Congressional Budget Office by 2023 with more than 31 million estimated to be uninsured at that time.  I am not sure what offsets there might be by that time, but this was an expensive proposition to get so few (in the grand scheme of things) insured and still have so many uninsured.


----------



## JHD (Mar 17, 2014)

Also this article
http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congressional-budget-office-sends-death-blow-to-obamacare/


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 17, 2014)

JHD said:


> Also this article
> http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congressional-budget-office-sends-death-blow-to-obamacare/



Citing an opinion piece as a source? Yikes!


----------



## JHD (Mar 17, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Citing an opinion piece as a source? Yikes!



No.  Also from the GAO website.  I just included the article, too.

ETA, not GAO, BUT CBO.


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2014)

They're called "search engines" and one popular version is "Google", www.google.com.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014_Feb.pdf


----------



## Scotth (Mar 17, 2014)

lindy said:


> But last week came word that with just 15 days left for people to enroll for federal coverage,* just 4.2 million had.* *The math is simple: That’s just 9 percent of the supposedly 46 million uninsured."*



The program doesn't end at the end of March it's just a milestone that will miss projections.  Where will be next year or the year after, who know?  It will still be better than it was when it started.  Will meaningful financial reform come along, I can only hope so.  The current system is killing the country, the economy and the household economy.  Even with Obamacare our healthcare system will still be way over priced.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 17, 2014)

I wonder how much was spent on this:  http://www.whitehouse.gov//acabracket

I remember once upon a time when adults were in charge.  :wall:

http://twitchy.com/2014/03/17/twerk...se-health-care-bracketology-gifs-slam-dunked/



> Jerome Hudson  @*JeromeEHudson*  Follow
> Obama is promoting Obamacare with twerking. Putin is reuniting the Soviet Union.


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> I wonder how much was spent on this:  http://www.whitehouse.gov//acabracket


 
What the holy monkey fuck of a social media abortion is THAT? That's a modern day Geocities page!

Someone's staff is trying too hard to be cool and hip...and failing miserably. What's next? Double rainbow guy and Rebecca Black team for a duet?

Wow.


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> That's a modern day Geocities page!



Ha! Next up: free music via Napster!


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Yes while only 4.2 million people have joined via healthcare.gov, another 2.2 million Americans received insurance through their parents insurance plans, 2.4 Million are new enrollees to medicare, and some states are saying that up to 1/3 of their new insurance enrollments are happening outside of the exchange(which is still legal). So that adds up to at least 8.8 million people having coverage who did not previously have it. While that is still a very low number, it is more than twice what is claimed in the editorial you posted.



Sorry to double post BUT...:-"

How many of those enrolled have actually PAID premiums?  I recently (during open season in Nov) enrolled in dental and vision insurance but my policy didn't go into effect until mid-Jan when the company took out the deduction from payroll.

Are those enrolled COVERED? If so, how? Who paid so they could get subsidized coverage?


----------



## Brill (Mar 18, 2014)

No such thing as a free lunch!

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/30/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html?iid=EL


----------



## JBS (Mar 21, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Yes while only 4.2 million people have joined via healthcare.gov, another 2.2 million Americans received insurance through their parents insurance plans, 2.4 Million are new enrollees to medicare, and some states are saying that up to 1/3 of their new insurance enrollments are happening outside of the exchange(which is still legal). So that adds up to at least 8.8 million people having coverage who did not previously have it. While that is still a very low number, it is more than twice what is claimed in the editorial you posted.





lindy said:


> Sorry to double post BUT...:-"
> 
> How many of those enrolled have actually PAID premiums?
> 
> Are those enrolled COVERED? If so, how? Who paid so they could get subsidized coverage?



Bingo!

The website shows how many people "signed up", meaning put their info in and looked at rates.  It doesn't show who secured coverage by PAYING.

*Nobody in the Administration has any idea how many people actually PAID* for insurance.

(See vid at 3:22)


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Mar 21, 2014)

I wish they would scrap the whole thing and start over.  It's been a colossal waste of time and money and while a handful of folks who had not previously had no coverage now do (yay!) it doesn't look like they're going to get the enrollment (and premiums paid...) numbers they need from the younger folks to keep the overall premiums for the 2015 coverage year down to a reasonable level for the average middle class folk who don't qualify for the subsidy.  

At this point I would I would agree with socializing (gasp!) preventative visits like the annual exams and general illness visits at the state level with a state tax that is deducted from payroll (like the FICA tax) and have the health insurance industry remain private for catastrophic coverage (cancer, accident, injury).  

I would recommend federal but I feel the government is incapable of managing a socialized program - the issues we have with medicare (waste, fraud, abuse) illustrate what happens when a government run program is too big.


----------



## JBS (Mar 21, 2014)

I'm totally in agreement with government REFORM of health care.  I'm just against mandates on individual citizens.  I'm also in favor of some common sense regulation- like DROPPING PEOPLE when they get sick, or the circus that comes out of trying to get things covered- the games that get played.  These things are in desperate need of reform.

But the .GOV needs to take a page out of the private sector to accomplish it.  It's simple.

RATINGS.

Just get a ratings system in place where insurance companies that are rated highly by patients get access to some kind of incentive- money.   Reward insurance companies the same way manufacturers reward car dealerships for volume of sales.   A significant portion of a car dealer's revenue comes not from the sale of the unit, but from a certain number of good surveys- Customer Service Index scores.   So they must hit their unit goals and also their customer service goals.  If they do both, they get a huge lump sum payout.  For this reason, many here who have bought a new car have found out that the dealer will often times go $1,000 below invoice- plus rebates and incentives on top of that- and basically sell the vehicle for below the actual cost of the vehicle.  Why?  Simple.  Trying to get to their bonus tier.

The goal should be to maximize coverage, maximize customer "service" experience, and duplicate existing mechanisms and strategies.  Using the auto industry model, an insurance company could "compete" with other insurance companies to enroll as many people as possible and also get positive survey results from their customers.   The process would encourage insurance providers to enroll more people AND also execute excellent service.   This isn't rocket science.

But sophisticated approaches to governing this nation will never originate from a President who while in the private sector never even ran a lemonade stand.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 21, 2014)

I'm going to disagree. The whole point of getting insurance is so you are covered WHEN YOU GET SICK, and if you just get your money taken and sent on your way then dropped like a hot rock when you get sick, there's no fucking point to the entire program at all.


----------



## compforce (Mar 21, 2014)

So here's something that wasn't thought through at all...  Look at the combination of these two:

No preexisting conditions, the insurers have to take you.
If you don't pay your premiums, the insurer is on the hook for the first month of care after the lapse, but there are 90 days of care "to give you a chance to catch up on premiums"

So, if someone gets sick or hurt and stops paying their premium, the doctors are on the hook for the second 60 days of treatment.  If it's a serious injury or sickness, it's cheaper for the DOCTOR TO PAY FOR YOUR PREMIUMS than it is for them to pay for the treatment and hope you catch up on premiums.   Sooo...if someone wanted to game the system, they could skip buying health insurance, wait to get sick or injured (paying the penalty, which is way less than the premiums unless they make a serious salary) get on the exchange as soon as they are diagnosed, pay the first month's premium and then stop paying, leaving the doctor to continue paying their premium for the duration of treatment.  Once they were treated, they would just let the insurance lapse and go back to paying penalties until they needed treatment again, which can't be denied thanks to the way the law is built. 

This will raise the costs for doctors to see patients, which will in turn force the insurance companies to pay more and raise rates to cover it...OR... put the doctors out of business due to higher average costs for treatment without a corresponding increase in insurance reimbursements. 

The whole thing (ACA) is a travesty that is not intended to work.  The ACA was built to fail to set up a necessary conversion to a single payer (socialized medicine) system.  We won't have a choice as a country because there isn't a good road back to the way things were.  If the law gets fully implemented before it's repealed, we're screwed.

If you think people are gaming the welfare system, just wait til you see the games they play with the healthcare system under ACA.


----------



## JBS (Mar 21, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> I'm going to disagree. The whole point of getting insurance is so you are covered WHEN YOU GET SICK, and if you just get your money taken and sent on your way then dropped like a hot rock when you get sick, there's no fucking point to the entire program at all.


We don't disagree.  Although I could have worded it better, I'm saying the same thing you are.  I think the idea of someone getting dropped when they get sick is borderline criminal.


----------



## Brill (Mar 25, 2014)

It's the law of the land! You MUST accept it...but POTUS will change it as needed "for the children".

I seriously do not understand how anyone can support the ACA and the administration of it. Baffles the mind.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 25, 2014)

lindy said:


> I seriously *do not understand how anyone can support the ACA* and the administration of it. Baffles the mind.


 
Really?  Do you really not understand?

IMO, the problem for many liberals now is they're in too deep.  They HAVE to buy off on the ACA.  If they start questioning the way the ACA works and whether or not it is good for the country, then they will have to start questioning their belief in everything else that has been done under the liberal agenda in the past few years.  Like the old saying goes, "In for a penny, in for a pound".


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 25, 2014)

I support the ACA because I was previously underinsured (the 5-year VA insurance sucks) and now I am fully insured.  It didn't cost me very much.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 26, 2014)

Here we go again.  Another "delay".  How far is this administration going to keep moving the goal post?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/26/obama-administration-announces-health-care-extension/



> The Washington Post reported that users will have a chance to check a box on the website indicating they tried to enroll before the deadline, though the government will not try to determine whether the person actually made an effort to sign up.


----------



## JHD (Mar 26, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I support the ACA because I was previously underinsured (the 5-year VA insurance sucks) and now I am fully insured.  It didn't cost me very much.



Don't take this the wrong way.  I get where you are coming from, and am glad you were able to get decent insurance.  The however to this statement is that even though Obamacare works for you, it is not working for the country and the tax paying citizens with the way this was rolled out (poorly written law, extremely poor implementation, overpriced venture with not near enough bang for the buck).  Rather than piecemeal a fix, scrap it completely and start over.  Patching and plugging holes will cost even more money and will not work in the long term.  Start over and use the minuscule parts that might have worked.  Let the people and businesses actually keep the plans they had and be grandfathered in and work with those not insured by anything.  Test the new system and work out the bugs before it is rolled out to the masses.  

As it is, this is adding to the entitlements we already fund to an extreme degree, limiting our ability to service our outstanding debt and reduce our deficit.  This administration is leaving a huge albatross to manage and eliminate once Obama is out of office.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 26, 2014)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I support the ACA because *I was previously underinsured* (the 5-year VA insurance sucks) and now I am fully insured.  It didn't cost me very much.


 
Why were you previously 'underinsured'?  Was the 'underinsurance' a result of the insurance companies actions or had you just not contacted any companies about increasing your coverage?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 26, 2014)

0699 said:


> Why were you previously 'underinsured'?  Was the 'underinsurance' a result of the insurance companies actions or had you just not contacted any companies about increasing your coverage?



He was referring to his coverage at the VA which, according to the infomailer I got from the VA last November, satisfied the legal requirements of the ACA. However, as a newly separated vet, he's only covered for free the first five years after ETSing. After that, it's means tested.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 26, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> He was referring to his coverage at the VA which, according to the infomailer I got from the VA last November, satisfied the legal requirements of the ACA. However, as a newly separated vet, he's only covered for free the first five years after ETSing. After that, it's means tested.



So you're saying he was 'underinsured' by choice?  Couldn't he have gone to Aetna or BC/BS and bought more insurance?  Did the ACA somehow change that?

I hear him saying he supports the ACA; I'm just looking for more information.  Maybe I should support it too.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

0699 said:


> So you're saying he was 'underinsured' by choice?  Couldn't he have gone to Aetna or BC/BS and bought more insurance?  Did the ACA somehow change that?
> 
> I hear him saying he supports the ACA; I'm just looking for more information.  Maybe I should support it too.



Imagine you are a fresh out if the military guy with no service connected disability who needs insurance. Say you get into your wife's plan. 400 dollars a month. The GI bill pays 1700 dollars a month, or just pays BAH, which is only 875 here. Now half of your monthly income is going to insurance.  Well why not just go to the VA? Well there are not Va hospitals everywhere and the VA insurance isn't that great. Under the ACA there are subsidies for a guy like above. Getting the rates way down, to under 60 dollars a month. That is affordable insurance.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Imagine you are a fresh out if the military guy with no service connected disability who needs insurance. Say you get into your wife's plan. 400 dollars a month. The GI bill pays 1700 dollars a month, or just pays BAH, which is only 875 here. Now half of your monthly income is going to insurance.  Well why not just go to the VA? Well there are not Va hospitals everywhere and the VA insurance isn't that great. Under the ACA there are subsidies for a guy like above. Getting the rates way down, to under 60 dollars a month. That is affordable insurance.


 
So there weren't any top-up plans for VA coverage before the ACA?

I'm not trying to be an asshole (this time), I'm just trying to understand what he's saying.


----------



## compforce (Mar 26, 2014)

It won't matter if you have insurance or not, all of the mid range and higher doctors are bailing out on the exchanges.  The payments to the provider are too low to cover the cost of doing business.  It won't be very long and we'll only have third world medicine here.  We really need a landslide election in 2014 to have any hope of unwinding ACA, 2016 will be too late.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 26, 2014)

0699 said:


> So there weren't any top-up plans for VA coverage before the ACA?
> 
> I'm not trying to be an asshole (this time), I'm just trying to understand what he's saying.



Top up the VA????? You've got a future doing political comedy. 

Here where I'm at, Medicaid is better than the VA, and Medicaid here is shit, but it's all my college student self plus dependent is eligible for, especially since the school offered insurance plan got unaffordable for me under the ACA. Which, BTW, if that's what you're eligible for, that's what you get. Not the subsidy, otherwise my daughter would've been on the highly superior AllKids program (subsidized low-income insurance offered by BCBS-AL). I stayed on the VA roll just so I don't have to drive into the Roger Williams housing project to get my medical care.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2014)

I should clarify: "underinsured" was the wrong word to use.  I had "sufficient" coverage through the VA's 5-year post service coverage, but it was next to worthless.  2-3 days to get a doctor appointment to get a staph infection looked at, and that was only AFTER I spent three hours navigating the phone system to get someone on the phone.  I ended up going to my school's health office instead.  Under my current, ACA-subsidized plan, I just have to walk down the street, pay about 25$ for an office visit and 5$ for antibiotics.  And it only costs about 70$ a month, so it's perfect for me.

EDIT: Also, wherever I end up going for school may not have a convenient VA hospital nearby, so having private insurance, for me, just makes sense.


----------



## JBS (Mar 26, 2014)

I don't think ANYBODY is seriously going to argue that there aren't some - a few- people who will benefit from Obamacare.   There are beneficiaries to almost every new government program.

It's just terrible for the country on every other level: coverage, debt, an unprecedented new wave of opportunity for mismanagement and corruption and the new notion that the government can require every citizen to buy a product just to be considered law abiding.  Besides the disaster it has already become, there are new problems we won't find out about for a few years because "we need to pass it so we can see what's in it".

I have a close friend who's 51 and has 1.35 million cash in the bank and drives a brand new Porsche.  He's single, no kids, has 3 properties, one of which is in Manhattan.  He switched his private health insurance over to Obamacare.  Guess what?  He loves it.   At 51 years old he pays like $200 or 250 per month,.     It's working for some people.   How that mathematically works out for the rest of the citizenry- to cover a 51 year old man with medical history- for $200 per month, I don't know.   I suspect it doesn't.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2014)

Well, a poster asserted earlier that he could not understand how anyone could support the ACA.  There are some people that support it because it benefits them.


----------



## JHD (Mar 26, 2014)

The ACA is not sustainable, and don't forget surrounding privacy issues concerning that data base with the potential Swiss cheese holes protecting your info.


----------



## JBS (Mar 26, 2014)

JHD said:


> The ACA is not sustainable, and don't forget surrounding privacy issues concerning that data base with the potential Swiss cheese holes protecting your info.


The part of privacy is actually of less concern to me than the sustainability part.    We needed governmental involvement in health care like we need toll booths on every street corner.   Wait until the costs start adding up.

Do you know what's going to happen?  Nothing.   Just like the national debt.  When the national debt calculators first starting becoming popularized, everyone would look at it and "oohhhh,   ahhhhh", as the last few digits flipped over at blinding speed.   "Look, we're going deeper in debt a million dollars a minute", people would say.   Now people don't even pay attention to it anymore.    It was a big deal at $5 trillion, and $10 trillion and now headed toward $20 trillion.   It's not even discussed anymore.    That's what the costs associated with healthcare are going to do.  They're going to rack up to unimagineable levels,  and as always not two fucks will be given.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

compforce said:


> It won't matter if you have insurance or not, all of the mid range and higher doctors are bailing out on the exchanges.  The payments to the provider are too low to cover the cost of doing business.  It won't be very long and we'll only have third world medicine here.  We really need a landslide election in 2014 to have any hope of unwinding ACA, 2016 will be too late.



What statistic or study are you using to validate what you said above?


----------



## JBS (Mar 26, 2014)

compforce said:


> It won't matter if you have insurance or not, all of the mid range and higher doctors are bailing out on the exchanges.  The payments to the provider are too low to cover the cost of doing business.  It won't be very long and we'll only have third world medicine here.  We really need a landslide election in 2014 to have any hope of unwinding ACA, 2016 will be too late.


We have no chance of unwinding it anymore, in my opinion.

Once you give away free things to people (or ridiculously inexpensive subsidized versions of things), you can't take it away from them again.  If you do, NPR will report on it night and day calling it "austerity", and the Left will orchestrate massive demonstrations which usually turn into molotov cocktail festivals and street riots- per Europe.

Besides that, the Conservatives in this nation have done a terrible job of keeping citizenship as a major topic of discussion.   Gradually, the Far Left is succeeding at adding and legitimizing millions of illegal immigrants, giving them healthcare, food and shelter subsidies- which increase with every child they give birth to.  And all those millions of immigrants are very soon going to be finding their ways to the voting booths.  And when they do, the only thing they're going to hear is that Liberal Candidate A wants to give them more benefits and Conservative Candidate B wants to take them away.  Guess who wins those districts?


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

compforce said:


> It won't matter if you have insurance or not, all of the mid range and higher doctors are bailing out on the exchanges.  The payments to the provider are too low to cover the cost of doing business.  It won't be very long and we'll only have third world medicine here.  .


 Why would a Dr. opt out of an exchange? Do  you mean these mid-higher doctors are going to stop accepting health insurance from people? If they don't want to take insurance then I wonder how they are operating now? A hell of a lot of practicioners currently accept medicare, which is gov't subsidized and I don't see any doctors fleeing from that. I would like to see a study that says x doctors are going to be no longer accepting insurance. I haven't seen one yet.


----------



## Dame (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Why would a Dr. opt out of an exchange? Do  you mean these mid-higher doctors are going to stop accepting health insurance from people? If they don't want to take insurance then I wonder how they are operating now? A hell of a lot of practicioners currently accept medicare, which is gov't subsidized and I don't see any doctors fleeing from that. I would like to see a study that says x doctors are going to be no longer accepting insurance. I haven't seen one yet.


A 2012 survey of more than 13,500 doctors from around the country found that 26% have already cut services for Medicaid patients due to costs, and within the next two years more than 50% plan to cut some patient access to their services. About  7% plan to switch to cash-only practices, like Ciampi's, or "concierge practices" in which patients pay doctors an annual retainer.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDIyN18x


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 26, 2014)

The practice where I formerly worked stopped taking new Medicare patients.  If they currently had Medicare they would continue to treat the patient.  However, unless the patient had a Medicare HMO such as Security Blue, no more straight Medicare patients accepted.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Why would a Dr. opt out of an exchange? Do  you mean these mid-higher doctors are going to stop accepting health insurance from people? If they don't want to take insurance then I wonder how they are operating now? A hell of a lot of practicioners currently accept medicare, which is gov't subsidized and I don't see any doctors fleeing from that. I would like to see a study that says x doctors are going to be no longer accepting insurance. I haven't seen one yet.


Because the Government slow rolls MediCare/MedicAid/TRICARE payments.
ACA contains costs by limiting what a Dr can charge (i.e. limiting the inbound cash flow).
ACA does not limit Malpractice Insurance Rates, Rent, Utility Rates, Employee Wages, etc (ie. the outbound cash flow).
ACA can drive small self employed providers out of business, so they opt out to avoid bankruptcy.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

Dame said:


> A 2012 survey of more than 13,500 doctors from around the country found that 26% have already cut services for Medicaid patients due to costs, and within the *next two years more than 50% plan to cut some patient access to their services.* About  7% plan to switch to cash-only practices, like Ciampi's, or "concierge practices" in which patients pay doctors an annual retainer.
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDIyN18x



Well seeing that is from 2012 and it is now two years later, I wonder where the follow up is. How many of those 7% actually followed up.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Because the Government slow rolls MediCare/MedicAid/TRICARE payments.
> ACA contains costs by limiting what a Dr can charge (i.e. limiting the inbound cash flow).
> ACA does not limit Malpractice Insurance Rates, Rent, Utility Rates, Employee Wages, etc (ie. the outbound cash flow).
> ACA can drive small self employed providers out of business, so they opt out to avoid bankruptcy.



You think there are enough people without insurance to support/provide patients for a physicians office? HOw many people do you know who can straight afford an MRI? Or a Radiologist to read an MRI. Both of those things cost 1000's of dollars. Let these doctors leave, then let them go bankrupt when their patients cannot pay them, or they don't have patients, because people have to have insurance.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 26, 2014)

Patients can file their own claim with their insurance carrier and be reimbursed directly for what the insurance carrier pays for that service.  We had patients with particular companies that our practice didnt participate with, that did it all the time.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Patients can file their own claim with their insurance carrier and be reimbursed directly for what the insurance carrier pays for that service.  We had patients with particular companies that our practice didnt participate with, that did it all the time.



Not to be a dick but didn't your practice go under?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> HOw many people do you know who can straight afford an MRI? Or a Radiologist to read an MRI. Both of those things cost 1000's of dollars.



The office that did my aunt's MRI a few weeks ago charged those patients using their insurance policy to obtain an MRI $900+, as opposed to $450 for those patients who were filing no insurance claim whatsoever and paid cash up front. When she gets back home, I'll get their contact information so you can call and verify it for yourself.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> The office that did my aunt's MRI a few weeks ago charged those patients using their insurance policy to obtain an MRI $900+, as opposed to $450 for those patients who were filing no insurance claim whatsoever and paid cash up front. When she gets back home, I'll get their contact information so you can call and verify it for yourself.



If you say it was 450 it was 450. How much for the radiologist to read it?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 26, 2014)

> .Wellstar imaging center at building 700.  On church street.    770 420 1750



Radiologist's reading was included in the cash price, $200 extra for insurance claim price.

There's the contact info. Ask all the fine print questions you can think of.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Not to be a dick but didn't your practice go under?


No.  One of the Doctors chose to leave and the other 2 left are not business men and have no idea what they are doing.  Instead of looking ahead when they knew the one partner was going to retire either start looking for another partner in advance or hire a nurse practitioner or physician assistant to pick up the office side of things(less money than hiring a full physician partner) they did nothing and got caught with their pants down so to speak.  They also are not what you would call hard workers and are rather toxic.  No way they are going to get a doctor in there at this point.

On the issue of fee for service vs accepting and participating with insurances, it would actually be quite lucrative for doctors to dump insurance.  The hassle of medical billing and the games one must play to get correct reimbursement out of Medicare and certain carriers requires a staff just strictly devoted to the billing.  I am not sure if you have ever worked in a medical practice or billing department of a hospital but it is by no means a simple process.  For instance, your MRI has a variety of components that would be billed under different HCPCS codes along with various ICD-9 codes which must match said HCPCS code along with modifier codes to describe particular parts of each HCPCS.  There is the actual MRI component.  Contrast with or without component. Or With and without component.  Professional component and then there is the entire reading fee components.   Back in the day, a doctor could employ a medical assistant to run the office and then run off the billing at the end of the day or the week and submit.  Now that process has grown to so many steps and hoops to jump through that doctor now employs at least 2-3 billing specialists whose sole tasks are...billing.  Take a look at the Medicare/Medicaid fee schedules sometime.  It is enough to make you tear your hair out.  The other downside of Medicare is the hospital side of things.  Reimbursements are not only lower than with other carriers,  there are rules, such as if an inpatient is readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of prior admission the hospital cannot bill ANYTHING for the second admission.  Need a PET scan as an inpatient?  The hospital gets zero reimbursement.  You have to discharge the patient and schedule the procedure as an outpatient.  And hospitals are doing just that.  Forcing doctors to discharge a patient and delay the PET scan until they are outpatient.

http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-f...h-results.aspx?Y=0&T=0&HT=0&CT=3&H1=99214&M=1

And as RK points out, some practices are moving to fee for service rather than participating with insurance carriers and giving savings to that type of patient, as then this cumbersome billing process is bypassed.  Doctors have overhead, school loans, rent, employee salaries and benefits, malpractice insurance ect ect.  If they are not getting fair reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and other carriers they wont be able to remain in practice.  They have to seek out other ways to remain in business.   Dr. Ciampi is pretty famous for doing it.  But there are actually alot of doctors limiting or eliminating accepting Medicare, Medicaid and other certain low paying carriers.  They may not advertise it, but it is happening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/dr-michael-ciampi_n_3354120.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/priv...ing-insurance-michael-ciampi-obamacare-2013-5

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/19/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/index.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/14/news/economy/obamacare-doctors/index.html

http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/docs-resisting-obamacare/


----------



## Brill (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Imagine you are a fresh out if the military guy with no service connected disability who needs insurance. Say you get into your wife's plan. 400 dollars a month. The GI bill pays 1700 dollars a month, or just pays BAH, which is only 875 here. Now half of your monthly income is going to insurance.  Well why not just go to the VA? Well there are not Va hospitals everywhere and the VA insurance isn't that great. Under the ACA there are subsidies for a guy like above. Getting the rates way down, to under 60 dollars a month. That is affordable insurance.



And I 100% fully support that...even for you! 

However I don't support the "unlawful" changes to the law to cater to specific groups for political purposes all the while saying the Republicans need to accept the law of the land while changing parts that one party doesn't like.


----------



## compforce (Mar 26, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> What statistic or study are you using to validate what you said above?



I'm personally caught up in it myself, even though I offer employer covered health care in my business.  MY doctor opted out of the exchange plans with BCBS of GA.  My ID number happens to start with an 'X' which was later used to identify exchange plans.  Even though my account is specifically flagged as "Off Exchange" according to BCBS, when the provider calls, they tell them that I am out of network because the provider opted out of the exchange plans.  We've been trying to work through this for about three weeks now over multiple conference calls with BCBS and the provider on the line at the same time with me.

That said, there are plenty of articles out there, note some are partisan, some are from healthcare and some are from other sources, I just took a random sampling:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-Medicare-doctors-drop/2013/07/29/id/517497/
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Some-Doctors-Say-No-to-Obamacare-Plans-244881541.html
http://health.usnews.com/health-new...2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100935430
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/11/01/The-Best-Hospitals-Are-Opting-Out-of-Obamacare
http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/docs-resisting-obamacare/
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Sto...doctor-rates-marketplace-insurance-plans.aspx
http://washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272


If you only read one article, read this one, plenty of sources and statistics (edit - yes, it's an older opinion piece, but from a doctor and with quite a few citations):


> Here's something that has gotten lost in the drive to institute universal health insurance: Health insurance doesn't automatically lead to health care. And with more and more doctors dropping out of one insurance plan or another, especially government plans, there is no guarantee that you will be able to see a physician no matter what coverage you have.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123993462778328019?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html


----------



## compforce (Mar 26, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Patients can file their own claim with their insurance carrier and be reimbursed directly for what the insurance carrier pays for that service.  We had patients with particular companies that our practice didnt participate with, that did it all the time.



Unless it's Tricare Reserve Select who never paid a single claim (edit - claim I submitted), not even a standard office visit.


----------



## JHD (Mar 27, 2014)

One of the key quotes from the USNews article Compforce supplied above was this

*"There has been an incredible amount of focus on the premium cost and subsidy, and precious little focus on what you get for your money"*

So, even if you do get a debilitating disease and need treatment at one of the top hospitals in the country, you may very well not be covered.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 27, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> Top up the VA????? You've got a future doing political comedy.


 
Hey, I'm ignorant.  I use TRICARE which I'm pretty happy with.  I truly don't know the answer to my question... :-/



Deathy McDeath said:


> I should clarify: "underinsured" was the wrong word to use.  I had "sufficient" coverage through the VA's 5-year post service coverage, but it was next to worthless.  2-3 days to get a doctor appointment to get a staph infection looked at, and that was only AFTER I spent three hours navigating the phone system to get someone on the phone.  I ended up going to my school's health office instead.  Under my current, ACA-subsidized plan, I just have to walk down the street, pay about 25$ for an office visit and 5$ for antibiotics.  And it only costs about 70$ a month, so it's perfect for me.
> 
> EDIT: Also, wherever I end up going for school may not have a convenient VA hospital nearby, so having private insurance, for me, just makes sense.


 
Maybe I'm asking my question wrong.  Before you "looked into" the ACA plans, did you call any private insurance companies on your own to see what they offered?  Would it have been possible to get a similar plan before the ACA?


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 27, 2014)

0699 said:


> Hey, I'm ignorant.  I use TRICARE which I'm pretty happy with.  I truly don't know the answer to my question... :-/
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm asking my question wrong.  Before you "looked into" the ACA plans, did you call any private insurance companies on your own to see what they offered?  Would it have been possible to get a similar plan before the ACA?



I know that the second my enrollment is up on my current plan I am going to an ACA plan. Unfortunately that isn't until August.  It will save us about 300 dollars a month to switch.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 27, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I know that the second my enrollment is up on my current plan I am going to an ACA plan. Unfortunately that isn't until August.  *It will save us about 300 dollars a month* to switch.


 
Wow.  Is it because of government subsidies?  How else could it be so much cheaper?


----------



## JBS (Mar 27, 2014)

0699 said:


> Wow.  Is it because of government subsidies?  How else could it be so much cheaper?


Heck yeah, it's from subsidies.

Obamacare is going to COST this nation* 2 Trillion*, and we have no idea how we're going to pay for it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...costs-will-now-eclipse-2-trillion_778723.html

It's terrible for the nation- along with every other freebie and subsidized program we don't have the money for.  I can't blame people for accepting it, as it's going to get handed out anyway to somebody somewhere, but in my mind, this program along with all the other unfunded programs that have been ramrodded through a worthless, corrupt, look-the-other way Congress are ultimately going to destroy this nation.  Unless someone understands economics far better than I do, and can explain to me how racking up trillions of dollars in new debt every year is going to work out, Obamacare is just one more gigantic, unfunded giveaway program that will no doubt boost some of the Left's voting numbers, but eventually bankrupt us all.


----------



## JBS (Mar 27, 2014)

Awesome governmental "cost reduction" in action.   Is anybody surprised?  Anybody?   Look at this:



> ... So, let’s do the math on that:  In 2009, we were told it would cost $848 billion to insure 31 million people.  That’s $27,000 per newly insured person.  Now we’re told it will cost $2.004 trillion to insure 25 million people.  That’s $80,000 per newly insured person—about a three-fold increase since passage.



$80,000 per person on average after it all shakes out.  That's $80,000 per person, from the magic invisible money machine, producing dollars we don't have from revenue we'll never collect.


----------



## JHD (Mar 27, 2014)

JBS said:


> Awesome governmental "cost reduction" in action.   Is anybody surprised?  Anybody?   Look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> $80,000 per person on average after it all shakes out.  That's $80,000 per person, from the magic invisible money machine, producing dollars we don't have from revenue we'll never collect.



Fear not.  When we are all taxed at 70 cents on the dollar, maybe then we can pay for it...


----------



## LOOON (Mar 27, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> I know that the second my enrollment is up on my current plan I am going to an ACA plan. Unfortunately that isn't until August.  It will save us about 300 dollars a month to switch.


Do you happen to be leaving out that you qualify for subsidies?

As far as I know, the only way that it can be THAT cheap, without being "completely _free_", is because of income qualifying a person for subsidized insurance.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 27, 2014)

LOOON said:


> Do you happen to be leaving out that you qualify for subsidies?
> 
> As far as I know, the only way that it can be THAT cheap, without being "completely _free_", is because of income qualifying a person for subsidized insurance.



Of course, I am veteran living off the GI  bill. I only "make" 1700 a month, and as far as .gov is concerned I don't even make that. Because that doesn't need to be claimed as income.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 27, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Of course, I am veteran living off the GI  bill. I only "make" 1700 a month, and as far as .gov is concerned I don't even make that. Because that doesn't need to be claimed as income.



If you were in Alabama, you'd be eligible for Medicaid, and you wouldn't get the choice of subsidy or Medicaid (no state exchange).  You'd have to choose between VA, Medicaid, or nothing.  At least, that's how some ACA sign-up expediter explained it to me.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 27, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> If you were in Alabama, you'd be eligible for Medicaid, and you wouldn't get the choice of subsidy or Medicaid (no state exchange).  You'd have to choose between VA, Medicaid, or nothing.  At least, that's how some ACA sign-up expediter explained it to me.



Those are shitty choices.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 27, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Those are shitty choices.



The woman wasn't particularly clear whether Medicaid over subsidies was a state eligibility issue or a feature of the federal plan.  So, if I were you, I'd look long and hard.  What with the money your HH6 has coming in, that ought to put you out of range of eligibility for Medicaid, but you better make sure.

That would really suck if you got slam dunked into "Shit Lite."

ETA: According to Kaiser Family Foundation's FAQ, as well as several others I've seen, my situation is not unique. In fact, if your state took the Medicaid expansion and you make up to 130% of federal poverty level(state exchange OR federal), you don't get subsidy, you get Medicaid. I'll post links either later tonight or tomorrow, when I'm not on my phone.  So I can't stress enough, do your research before you feed your information to the exchange.


----------



## Brill (Mar 27, 2014)

I know this is going to be unpopular but why should taxpayers be paying subsidies so people can get healthcare?  Because I make poverty level + X?  You mean the terminally unemployed or lifetime poor didn't have the same opportunities to improve their lifestyle, standard of living, etc?

Everyone just couldn't cut a break (had bad luck), was unable to serve in the military, use GI Bill to attend school, and get a job...keep a job...and advance in their career?  Poor folks are just unlucky?  They are victims of circumstance?

Back when I was a kid, people looked up to the rich people in town and wanted to emulate them.  Now we demonize them for being rich and require them to pay their "fair share".  Being on food stamps back then was embarrassing.

Wouldn't it make more sense that unhealthy people, regardless of income, pay a higher premium and healthy people would receive incentives (lower rates) for smart choices?

The government needs to stop playing Robin Hood.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 28, 2014)

lindy said:


> I know this is going to be unpopular but *why should taxpayers be paying subsidies so people can get healthcare*?  Because I make poverty level + X?  You mean the terminally unemployed or lifetime poor didn't have the same opportunities to improve their lifestyle, standard of living, etc?
> 
> Everyone just couldn't cut a break (had bad luck), was unable to serve in the military, use GI Bill to attend school, and get a job...keep a job...and advance in their career?  Poor folks are just unlucky?  They are victims of circumstance?
> 
> ...


 
Dude.  Where have you been for the last ten years?  This is the new normal.

If you're a failure, you're a victim.
If you're a success, you're a thief.


----------



## Chopstick (Mar 28, 2014)

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/124...ses-harrowing-reality-obamacares-war-doctors/

The letter from this physician in this article illustrates very well what I was attempting to explain in regards to what should be a simple billing process for doctor's offices.



> *Dear Congressman Brooks,*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBS (Mar 28, 2014)

As I was saying.
*Obamcare Sign-Up Fairs held at Mexico Consulates *
Biden: Illegal Aliens are "already Americans"







JBS said:


> We have no chance of unwinding it anymore, in my opinion.
> 
> Once you give away free things to people (or ridiculously inexpensive subsidized versions of things), you can't take it away from them again.  If you do, NPR will report on it night and day calling it As "austerity", and the Left will orchestrate massive demonstrations which usually turn into molotov cocktail festivals and street riots- per Europe.
> 
> Besides that, the Conservatives in this nation have done a terrible job of keeping citizenship as a major topic of discussion.   Gradually, the Far Left is succeeding at adding and legitimizing millions of illegal immigrants, giving them healthcare, food and shelter subsidies- which increase with every child they give birth to.  And all those millions of immigrants are very soon going to be finding their ways to the voting booths.  And when they do, the only thing they're going to hear is that Liberal Candidate A wants to give them more benefits and Conservative Candidate B wants to take them away.  Guess who wins those districts?


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Mar 28, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> Those are shitty choices.



I may have posted this a few pages back... but even the folks this is supposed to help, are getting screwed.  My sister didn't qualify for health care under the ACA because she is too poor.  She also doesn't qualify for Medicaid because our state didn't take the expansion.  The letter she received denying her both told her to go to free clinics...   no joke.

Even if our state had taken the expansion she would have her choice of free clinics or medicaid but no subsidized health care.

I am curious if she would be assessed a penalty for not having health insurance this year, after being denied by healthcare.gov....  I'll have to research this.


----------



## compforce (Mar 28, 2014)

AMRUSMCR said:


> I am curious if she would be assessed a penalty for not having health insurance this year, after being denied by healthcare.gov....  I'll have to research this.



No, they passed an exemption specifically for people that fell into the gap you described.



> *Who are the individuals Exempt from Paying the Health Insurance Tax Penalty for Not being insured*
> Any individual who falls within one of the scenarios listed below will not have to pay the Health Insurance Tax penalty, if they do not have a health insurance plan with the “essential benefits”
> 
> If you are an individual who cannot afford coverage. The term unaffordable relates to a person whose contribution toward minimum essential coverage would be greater than 8% of their annual household income. The monthly contributions are calculated at 1/12 the annual household income. This is used to determine if the individual exceed the 8%.
> ...


----------



## Brill (Mar 28, 2014)

0699 said:


> Dude.  Where have you been for the last ten years?  This is the new normal.
> 
> If you're a failure, you're a victim.
> If you're a success, you're a thief.



I've been watching CSPAN waiting...hoping...for the promised change.


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2014)

Whats $125 mil among Democrats?  Ain't their money so why would they care?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...andon-125m-obamacare-exchange-for-new-system/


----------



## Brill (Mar 30, 2014)

lindy said:


> I know this is going to be unpopular but why should taxpayers be paying subsidies so people can get healthcare?  Because I make poverty level + X?  You mean the terminally unemployed or lifetime poor didn't have the same opportunities to improve their lifestyle, standard of living, etc?
> 
> *Everyone just couldn't cut a break (had bad luck), was unable to serve in the military, use GI Bill to attend school, and get a job...keep a job...and advance in their career?  Poor folks are just unlucky?  They are victims of circumstance?*
> 
> ...



“You can’t blame the people living in the inner cities, blacks and latinos, for not having jobs where there are no jobs in the inner cities. You can’t blame them when the schools suck, the hospital sucks, there’s no grocery store, all of their fathers are in jail,” Mediaite reported. The panel’s fellow left-leaning guest agreed.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-racial-paul-ryan-quote-actual/#ixzz2xSFEqIse


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 30, 2014)

lindy said:


> “You can’t blame the people living in the inner cities, blacks and latinos, for not having jobs where there are no jobs in the inner cities. You can’t blame them when the schools suck, the hospital sucks, there’s no grocery store, all of their fathers are in jail,” Mediaite reported. The panel’s fellow left-leaning guest agreed.
> 
> http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2...-racial-paul-ryan-quote-actual/#ixzz2xSFEqIse



It's not often that conservatives agree with Bill Mahr. He certainly called it for what it was with that little round of "gotcha."


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 30, 2014)

That was an amazing shot at just how Racist Paul Ryan is...oh wait....


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2014)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> That was an amazing shot at just how Racist Paul Ryan is...oh wait....



Paul Ryan said it was a culture issue and cited Charles Murphy who tried to argue race influences intelligence.

The people on Maher's show argued they were economically disadvantage with poor schools, hospitals, no jobs in the inner city etc.

Believe what you will but they weren't making the same argument.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> You should've put in a caveat for Oregon, dude. Their state exchange ain't working out for nothin'.



Saw this today on Politico and thought of you.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-in-oregon-a-failed-exchange-105189.html?hp=t1_s

Recaps all the fail in Oregon.


----------



## Brill (Mar 31, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Paul Ryan said it was a culture issue and cited Charles Murphy who tried to argue race influences intelligence.
> 
> The people on Maher's show argued they were economically disadvantage with poor schools, hospitals, no jobs in the inner city etc.
> 
> Believe what you will but they weren't making the same argument.



The poor only live in the inner cities?


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2014)

lindy said:


> The poor only live in the inner cities?



Of course they don't.  There are poor everywhere.  But poor people living in the suburbs have access to the better school systems found in suburbs along with other services etc.

I wasn't defending any position in my previous post.  I pointed out that they didn't present the same arguments.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 31, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Of course they don't.  There are poor everywhere.  But poor people living in the suburbs have access to the better school systems found in suburbs along with other services etc.
> 
> I wasn't defending any position in my previous post.  I pointed out that they didn't present the same arguments.


Seriously,

I spent most of my life in the Suburbs, and my schooling sucked balls.
I couldn't believe how crappy my Guidence Consellors were compared to my other classmates (in college).  Some suburban schools have all the bells and whistles, many don't.

FWIW-Go to the "meth belt" (E. OH, W PA IIRC) and you see the same issues as Detroit, LA, etc; except the single parent families are mainly white.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 31, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Paul Ryan said it was a culture issue and cited Charles Murphy who tried to argue race influences intelligence.
> 
> The people on Maher's show argued they were economically disadvantage with poor schools, hospitals, no jobs in the inner city etc.
> 
> Believe what you will but they weren't making the same argument.



Call it whatever definition you want.....whenever they found out it was MO and not PR....they backpedal'd like you read about!


----------



## Brill (Mar 31, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Seriously,
> 
> I spent most of my life in the Suburbs, and my schooling sucked balls.



Cath-o-lick school I take it?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 31, 2014)

lindy said:


> Cath-o-lick school I take it?


LOL, no Public Schooling.


----------



## comrade-z (Apr 3, 2014)

http://blog.smartbear.com/code-review/where-did-healthcare-gov-go-wrong-lets-start-with-everywhere/

Good article that hits key reasons why the website was dead on arrival. Mostly non-technical/easy to read.


----------



## Brill (Apr 3, 2014)

This is the type of shit that I'm tired of because $700mil would go a long way to help those inner city kids.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...macare-despite-obama-claim/?intcmp=latestnews


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 8, 2014)

Another story illustrating the false mantra of "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.."

http://www.goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?p=1&tc=pg&AID=2014140409873



> Shortly after Mary West bought health insurance, she realized there was a problem.
> 
> For years, the Spartanburg resident was treated by a doctor at Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System.
> 
> ...





> Cherniak said Coventry does not have an exclusive arrangement with Spartanburg Regional. Members who buy the CareLink Health Plus plans can obtain care from other doctors or hospitals, but for a cost.
> 
> “They will pay higher out-of-pocket costs and receive reduced benefits if they access care from other providers,” he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 10, 2014)

If you like your Secretary of Health and Human Services, you can keep your Secretary of Health and...oh..wait...


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lius-resigning-after-botched-obamacar/?page=1



> Beleaguered Health and Human Sevices Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, a White House official confirmed.





> While Mr. Obama insisted he was standing by Mrs. Sebelius, he didn’t mention her in the audience during a Rose Garden
> 
> announcement at the White House last week while touting the number of Obamacare enrollments. She was seated in front of the president at the time.


----------



## Totentanz (Apr 10, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> If you like your Secretary of Health and Human Services, you can keep your Secretary of Health and...oh..wait...
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lius-resigning-after-botched-obamacar/?page=1



A LONG overdue action...


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 10, 2014)

Totentanz said:


> A LONG overdue action...


Im sure she will be getting some sort of cushy job with National Security or IRS or Organize for Action in no time....   :-"


----------



## Chopstick (Apr 11, 2014)

Oh, the irony.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 5, 2014)

Sooooooooo the site was hacked in July but the breach was not discovered until last week?  No worries?  Seems legit. :-"

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/216700-report-healthcaregov-was-hacked-in-july



> A hacker breached HealthCare.gov in July and uploaded malicious software, apparently intending to use the system in future cyberattacks against other websites.
> 
> The break-in, first *reported* by _The_ _Wall Street Journal_, was discovered last week by federal health officials, who said no personal data was taken.
> 
> It is the first successful, confirmed hack of the federal health insurance exchange that went through a rocky launch last year.


----------



## comrade-z (Sep 5, 2014)

That likely is pretty legit, but still quite concerning/troubling for obvious reasons.  A successful attack can be very difficult to find and figure out, even if you are actively looking for it.  My bet is that the person either did it for kicks/a challenge, or that the article is correct that the person is looking for vulnerabilities across a variety of systems and healthcare.gov fit the attacker's criteria; such a high profile website seems like a strange choice for a place to drop DDoS software.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 5, 2014)

Not at all. It's a system that's known upgraded and also not typically something people would have IP blocked as a standard.  The amount of outbound bandwidth that would be available to fire up... let alone any data available for sale after capture? yeahhhhhhhh


----------



## comrade-z (Sep 5, 2014)

For sure, but that traffic is monitored - any spike in bandwidth usage significant enough to be worthwhile would be pretty apparent.  Plus issues of hiding network traffic on a server that is certainly viewed as a potential victim of DDoS attacks.  Also, why bother singling out one server when a small number of pre-existing tools can find and install DDoS software on hundreds of poorly protected servers with the same, or less effort.

Data capture does not seem to be a likely part of this particular attack (test server + DDoS malware, not data-gathering malware), but I definitely agree that it could be part of future attacks - the server, while not used for any personal data/the site itself, still was used for testing code for the site ( http://www.zdnet.com/healthcare-gov-test-server-hacked-7000033336/ ).  If the attacker got access to code for parts of the website that are not supposed to be visible that could make it a lot easier to find weak spots in a system.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 5, 2014)

Come on dude.

They got the package on the system. You think it's monitored enough given this actually got put on there.... how long ago?


----------



## comrade-z (Sep 6, 2014)

I think I am not reading your point on monitoring correctly, but I don't think it really matters since I think we agree on a lot of this. I certainly agree with you on the importance that since they did it once already, they now have a known way into that system.  I also agreed that there is probably more to this, or that there will be more to this in the future - as I said before, a server with any version of the application, testing or otherwise, would be a gold mine for someone researching for future attacks against the application.

All I meant is that there is a lot of cybercrime against randomly chosen targets, and malware systems that just scan around for vulnerable systems - this is certainly less likely, but not something to be ruled out from the investigation either.


----------



## AWP (Sep 6, 2014)

"Trusted sites" is another consideration. How many "hacks" of major systems occur because the attackers used a system one or more removed from the eventual victim? So, healthcare.gov is trusted by...state.gov or a .mil or whoever. You use one to gain access to another. Then you use that to go elsewhere. It isn't a far fetched scenario because a vulnerability in one is a vulnerability in all.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Sooooooooo the site was hacked in July but the breach was not discovered until last week?  No worries?  Seems legit. :-"
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/216700-report-healthcaregov-was-hacked-in-july



Well first off the head lines are a whole lot different then the actual event.  No the Helthcare.gov website wasn't hacked.  The healthcare.gov TEST website was hacked.

If the fed is anything like us in the private sector our TEST sites aren't connected to our production servers in anyway and security related to a TEST site reflects that.  Why would you even bother creating a test website enviroment if your planning on making it a production system?

Yah it got hacked but that doesn't mean one system compromised another.  Maybe I'm wrong, with how the government does it, but this is hardly big news because breaching a test enviroment is hardly breaching production enviroment.


----------



## AWP (Sep 6, 2014)

Scotth said:


> Maybe I'm wrong but this is hardly big news because breaching test enviroment is hardly breaching production enviroment.


 
It is and it isn't. Without knowing the details we have a few "if's", but I still think it is noteworthy. Depending upon the mechanism(s) involved in the breach, this is a big deal. In my experience it is very rare for a test environment to have a different security level than production environments. Given that patches and software upgrades can break existing sites or functionality, it is one of those things you have to test. Plus the bad guys are seeing the code and how the servers are set up. Again, this mimics the production environment.

Outside of a honeypot or some details we don't know, this is still a big deal.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 6, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> It is and it isn't. Without knowing the details we have a few "if's", but I still think it is noteworthy. Depending upon the mechanism(s) involved in the breach, this is a big deal. In my experience it is very rare for a test environment to have a different security level than production environments. Given that patches and software upgrades can break existing sites or functionality, it is one of those things you have to test. Plus the bad guys are seeing the code and how the servers are set up. Again, this mimics the production environment.
> 
> Outside of a honeypot or some details we don't know, this is still a big deal.



I don't disagree with what you said and obviously I know about as much as you do about the particulars of this case.  You would have hoped that the production versus the test system would have had the same updates/patches installed but who really knows?

The biggest issue that would happen between a test and production system access would probably revolve around the the firewall access in my first guess but then again that is a guess.  If anything when the actual mechanism for the breech gets discovered they will have probably made the production system even stronger.

So lets thank the bad guys for not knowing any better and attacking the test system instead of the production system.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

I would think that Healthcare.gov would be the gold standard and height of security and integrity of such systems existing in the world today.  As "Jane Average" citizen,  its a little more than worrisome that this event was not noticed for over a month.  So much for  your healthcare being between you and your doctor.


----------



## Dame (Sep 6, 2014)

If you like your delusion of safety under federal government regulation of everything, you can keep it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> .  So much for  your healthcare being between you and your doctor.



Your healthcare even in the case of this breach will still very much be between you and your doctor. If you understood what healthcare.gov is, which apparently you still don't, that would be apparent to you. Quotes like the above are part of the reason real problems with the ACA are not addressed.

Healthcare.gov is a marketplace where you view insurance plans. Once you have said insurance(through a private company) the relationship with healthcare.gov, or .gov in general ceases and you only deal with the insurance company.

Your snarky comment doesn't meet the mark as it only highlights your continued ignorance of facts, which almost a year into the operation of the site is rather appalling.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

Your bank account information among other things are required to purchase your health coverage on this site?  Again, (and again) I know you do not like me or my opinions, but your continued denigration of me in your posts is apparent.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

In addition, I work with the ramifications of ACA every day in my job.  ACA and EMR are hand in glove with physicians being paid for their services and not assessed penalties which will be coming down in 2015.  So yes, ACA is a driving force in your healthcare records and financial records being totally online vs a paper chart in your Doctor's office or a chart in your local hospital,  and available to a variety of outside entities at the click (or hack) of a button.  
http://www.medicalrecords.com/physicians/meaningful-use-government-incentives-information

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/breachtool.html


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Your bank account information among other things are required to purchase your health coverage on this site?  Again, (and again) I know you do not like me or my opinions, but your continued denigration of me in your posts is apparent.



Bank account information has nothing to do with what I responded to. You said 


Chopstick said:


> .  So much for  your healthcare being between you an
> d your doctor.



Last I checked bank account information had ZERO to do with healthcare decisions between a doctor and a patient.
This comment either doesn't belong here, and you posted it accidentally, or you are being willfully ignorant of facts and coming here to propagate bullshit. 

As to my denigration of your posts, if you post something that is lacking a basis in any kind if fact, I will criticize it.  If you think it is unfair for me to criticize something that you posted in the open, then I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

I will pass along your sentiments to the patients I have that are dealing with issues directly related to their enrollment in the ACA and how it is impacting their healthcare.  Particularly the gentleman who, somehow has had his ID # switched out with that of his son's, that no one can seem to get corrected.  Healthcare.gov blames the vendor and the vendor blames the Healthcare.gov sign up.  These individuals do not share the same exact name either.  This is most certainly affecting the health care of both individuals as claims are being denied and this has disrupted the life sustaining medication the father requires as well as surveillance testing the son requires due to a (now in remission) pediatric cancer.  Sure, the patient is free to pay out of pocket for these expenses if he wishes to stop paying all of his other obligations in life.  While the government has stepped in to make sure everyone has healthcare that is affordable, the sad fact is that is not playing out for every citizen.  This particular patient is paying for his healthcare as mandated by law, but he is certainly having a hard time getting anything covered regarding himself and his son.  He has told us this issue has affected his income tax filing this past year as well, due to this switching of numbers.  Couple all of that with the legal fees he is paying to try to get this snafu rectified.  This family did not have any issues until they were forced to utilize the ACA due to the patient's employer dropping health care coverage, as they found the options too expensive to sustain their business.   The ACA has most definitely affected the healthcare decisions for these people.  Luckily the cancer center where the son was treated has agreed to cover any life sustaining treatment on a charity basis for the child.  However, they will not extend that to his 3 month surveillance for recurrence testing.  For that, an out of state charity based cancer facility has agreed to provide any needed testing.  However the family has to travel to the facility at their own expense.  As for the father, he has resorted to a less than optimal treatment modality that is far less effective for him, for now.  Hopefully the plethora of letters and documentation my boss has provided for him will soon be effective and his optimal treatment will be restored an properly paid for.   

Penalties for not participating with the ACA will be assessed via the IRS.   http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2012/...-having-health-insurance-under-obamacare.html
I do not see how this could ever be a problem.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 6, 2014)

STOP FIGHTING MOM AND DAD!!!

Look, I purchased insurance through an exchange, and the only time I input bank account information was when I was making payments through the insurer's website.  At no time did the exchange ask me for bank information.  So as to that point, it's not a concern.  However, the exchange website did ask for personal information, to include SSN, so if the healthcare.gov website is breached then customers' identities may be at risk.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

So in order to facilitate your payments you did indeed provide your banking information, correct?
Is this the correct profile of information gathered during the sign up process in your experience?
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> So in order to facilitate your payments you did indeed provide your banking information, correct?
> Is this the correct profile of information gathered during the sign up process in your experience?
> http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf



I only gave bank information to BCBS.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

To the computer folks, can you explain to people like me that do not know/understand what would be the point of this "hack" and how it happened if the server was not supposed to access the internet?  Why would any government system have low security settings as stated in the article?  What could have happened if this breach has not been manually located, and what is the possibility such like things sitting there that have not even been detected?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/hacker-breached-healthcare-gov-insurance-site-1409861043


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> So in order to facilitate your payments you did indeed provide your banking information, correct?
> Is this the correct profile of information gathered during the sign up process in your experience?
> http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf


I provided account/routing information to the insurer (in this case, Anthem Blue Cross).  I believe that the only information that I provided to the exchange site was voluntary info about income, savings and the like (as outlined in section 11).


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> So in order to facilitate your payments you did indeed provide your banking information, correct?
> Is this the correct profile of information gathered during the sign up process in your experience?
> http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf



Your first question is incorrect, the payments are made to the insurance company you purchase coverage through.

That is the exact profile of questions I was asked, there is no banking information asked there, only tax and income questions.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

Can you pay with a credit card?


----------



## medicchick (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> Can you pay with a credit card?


Yes, at the INSURANCE site, NOT healthcare.gov.  I looked into it before we started on Tricare, at no time do you enter payment into on healthcare.gov.  They match you with insurance companies.  Yes, you need to enter SSN and IRS tax info but not bank account info.


----------



## comrade-z (Sep 6, 2014)

Chopstick said:


> To the computer folks, can you explain to people like me that do not know/understand what would be the point of this "hack" and how it happened if the server was not supposed to access the internet?  Why would any government system have low security settings as stated in the article?  What could have happened if this breach has not been manually located, and what is the possibility such like things sitting there that have not even been detected?
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/hacker-breached-healthcare-gov-insurance-site-1409861043



I can't read that article (I don't have a subscription), but I can try answering your questions as is.

If the server could not access the internet at all, then that really does suggest that the DDoS software was very likely not the main payload - more malware could have been on the way, or even already installed.  Perhaps it was used to test to see if they could just get any malware onto the machine.  DDoS software (Distributed Denial of Service) is malware that is used to cause traffic jams on a network, in order to paralyze access to resources - it is what gets used to prevent access to websites for example.  Other possibilities exist, but DDoS software is generally not as effective on devices that can't reach out to the internet - from an internal test server it *could* still cause a decent bit of mayhem on whatever internal network that server was on, or, since the hackers clearly had a way on to the machine, they could have directed traffic back out the way they came.  How smart this would be depends on the local network design, as it could be anything from being easy to do, to being easy to set off alarms.

Lower security relative to other systems will always exist, as higher security comes with more restrictions on usability - while it would be nice to have the full organization's security applied to every device, it isn't always realistic.  *How* much lower the security was for this server, and in what ways.....*shrug*.  Chances are that is information that will not be publicly released as part of any investigations findings due to sensitivity.

How it happened isn't something that can really be answered with currently available knowledge - how segregated from the internet was this machine, what security was or was not in place, where was this machine within the internal network, etc.

What could have happened if it hadn't been located is also a big question - anything from "nothing" to "hackers now effectively own the entire internal network".  This is a complete unknown until all potentially affected systems have been completely segregated from everything else, and get thoroughly checked, multiple times.  It really depends on who did this, what they wanted from this system, and whether the DDoS malware was all that they put onto the network - however I would wager that there is a strongly non-zero probability that there could be more malware on the particular server or on other machines.

I know some of you on here are more directly involved with IT on a daily basis than I am, so any corrections, additions, etc would be appreciated.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2014)

The thing people are failing to understand is that healthcare.gov is not an insurance site, you don't get any coverage through the website, or for that matter the government, the site just lists what coverages you qualify for, and shows you plans that meet that coverage. After you choose a plan, everything is done through a private insurance companies website. Mine for instance was all done through Blue Cross Blusle Shield. The government doesn't need payment info because they are not providing coverage, or being at all involved in healthcare choices.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 6, 2014)

Not like your submitted tax information is enough to be able to take every penny you have or anything.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Not like your submitted tax information is enough to be able to take every penny you have or anything.



Yep, that information is there, but a ton of other companies and organizations, including .gov already have their grubby hands all over it.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 6, 2014)

True, but generally speaking companies have processes in place in order to protect your data and are remotely proactive because it's your choice to be their customer (unless it's healthcare, in which case the government now says you have to buy their shit). Government? you're a forced customer.  Period.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2014)

@comrade-z thank you for that post.  Interestingly you mentioned about the government not releasing security information.  This article was posted about that topic not too long ago, and shortly afterward this recent breach is announced.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/08/19/obamacare-website-security/



> After promising not to withhold government information over "speculative or abstract fears," the Obama administration has concluded it won't publicly disclose federal records that could shed light on the security of the government's health care website because doing so could "potentially" allow hackers to break in.





> In addition to citing potential health-privacy violations, the government cited exemptions intended to protect personal privacy and law-enforcement records, although the agency didn't explain what files about the health care website had been compiled for law-enforcement purposes. Some open-government advocates were skeptical.
> "Here you have an example of an agency resorting to a far-fetched privacy claim in an unprecedented attempt to bridge this legal gap and, in the process, making it even worse by going overboard in withholding such records in their entireties," said Dan Metcalfe, a former director of the Justice Department's office of information and privacy who's now at American University's law school.
> 
> Keeping details about lockdown practices confidential is generally derided by information technology experts as "security through obscurity." Disclosing some types of information could help hackers formulate break-in strategies, but other facts, such as numbers of break-ins or descriptions of how systems store personal data, are commonly shared in the private sector. "Security practices aren't private information," said David Kennedy, an industry consultant who testified before Congress last year about HealthCare.gov's security.



This article is a bit older but look what happened when this guy tried to tell them he noted a problem!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...nd-an-obamacare-website-is-hackable-now-what/



> Hermansen discovered a vulnerability that would allow someone to take over another person’s account on the California site, and review or change the information entered there. He tried contacting Covered California “at least 15 times” by email, phone or chat about the problem, but got no response for over a month.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 7, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> True, but generally speaking companies have processes in place in order to protect your data and are remotely proactive because it's your choice to be their customer (unless it's healthcare, in which case the government now says you have to buy their shit). Government? you're a forced customer.  Period.



Right but as a veteran I gave all my data to .gov a long time ago. As much as I distrust the VA I think they will give my data away just as quick.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 7, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> As much as I distrust the VA I think they will give my data away just as quick.



If they don't give you HIV or Hep B/C first. (Sorry for the hijack, it's a reflexive action when I think of dealing with the VA).


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 7, 2014)

IRS scrubs their drives every 6 months, or so I have heard


----------



## AWP (Sep 7, 2014)

SOWT said:


> IRS scrubs their drives every 6 months, or so I have heard


 
I wanted to hate that, but the truth hurts...


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 22, 2014)

Did not know your tax refund would get hit if you get an ACA subsidy?

If I understand this correctly, you file an estimated earnings statement when you apply for ACA, and if you earn more you get penalized?  Makes sense, but I wonder why they don't tax average?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cut-for-some-who-get-health-credits/15958211/


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 27, 2014)

The NY Times has published a fairly impartial assessment of the ACA in the wake of its one-year anniversary. 

BLUf: It has been working fairly well, but hasn't quite reached some of the promised milestones.  It has also been marred by a few significant controversies ("If you like your insurance..." Et. Al).  The next test will be when the exchanges re-open in November.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

*Is the Affordable Care Act Working?*


> After a year fully in place, the Affordable Care Act has largely succeeded in delivering on President Obama’s main promises, an analysis by a team of reporters and data researchers shows. But it has also fallen short in some ways and given rise to a powerful conservative backlash.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 27, 2014)

Thankfully I don't have to fuck with this bullshit, however a friend does....







GO ACA FUCK EVERYONE


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 27, 2014)

Lovely bullshit included: Pregnancy coverage for people..... after histectomies, tubal ligations, or menopause... That's just the top of the list. He had his insurance configured in a specific manner for a reason.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 27, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Thankfully I don't have to fuck with this bullshit, however a friend does....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice, they triple the rate on people forcing them into cheaper coverage.
All part of the plan.


----------



## JHD (Oct 28, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Lovely bullshit included: Pregnancy coverage for people..... after histectomies, tubal ligations, or menopause... That's just the top of the list. He had his insurance configured in a specific manner for a reason.



Ditto my mother.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Oct 28, 2014)

We just got our group renewal - if we want to renew with plans as close to the current plan as we currently have we will have to take a 35% increase in monthly premium on our higher deductible plan and a 40% increase in monthly premium on our low deductible plan.

Yay, ACA.

Can't wait to see what the new plan options for 2015 look like - in order to reduce the % increase in monthly premium we will have to switch plans.

When I ran an individual quote to compare against the group quote there was a lot of "No copay - all services covered at 100% AFTER you meet your high deductible of $3000 - $6000 for a $250 -$300 monthly premium".  These plans used to be catastrophic plans that run for under $100 bucks a month that you had as a "just in case I get hurt or ill".


----------



## Brill (Oct 28, 2014)

you rich people need to pay your fair share!


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2014)

lindy said:


> you rich people need to pay your fair share!


Rich defined as anyone not on welfare.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Oct 29, 2014)

SOWT said:


> Rich defined as anyone not on welfare.



I'd probably have more net pay in my pocket if I switched to welfare.  At least my health care would be subsidized so I wouldn't have to pay any out of pocket on the monthly premium.


----------



## Gypsy (Oct 29, 2014)

AMRUSMCR said:


> I'd probably have more net pay in my pocket if I switched to welfare.  At least my health care would be subsidized so I wouldn't have to pay any out of pocket on the monthly premium.



Amen sister.  My new employer has a high deductible, 5K.  The premiums alone are killing me.  Had I known I'd have negotiated a higher salary.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Nov 1, 2014)

Jesus, I'm never leaving the military.  I'll stick with my $10.30/month Tri-Care.


----------



## AWP (Nov 1, 2014)

SkrewzLoose said:


> Jesus, I'm never leaving the military.  I'll stick with my $10.30/month Tri-Care.


 
I'm dragging this quote out every time you complain about being on a ship...


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Nov 1, 2014)

I said military...not Navy.  But fair enough.  
I'll be the first to admit that the military has plenty of advantages if you're willing to put up with the bullshit that goes on...you know, the same bullshit that goes on in the civilian sector as well.  But that is a whole 'nother discussion.


----------



## Brill (Aug 21, 2016)

Death march to a single payer system?

Obamacare has gone from the president's greatest achievement to a 'slow-motion death spiral'

Op-Ed: Obamacare is failing. And there's only one way to fix it


----------



## AKkeith (Aug 21, 2016)

I pay $2,073 a month for myself, wife and 2 children. That's 80/20 with $4000 deductible on each person. $32,000 max payout a year. 

It's insane.


----------



## compforce (Aug 21, 2016)

AKkeith said:


> I pay $2,073 a month for myself, wife and 2 children. That's 80/20 with $4000 deductible on each person. $32,000 max payout a year.
> 
> It's insane.



So, by the definitions they had in ACA, if it's an employer based plan,  you'll have a "cadillac plan" after the rate increase next year and get to pay another 40% on top of it. 



> Rather than simply repealing the old tax structure, the Obamacare solution is an additional tax, a penalty imposed on “Cadillac” or very high cost health plans. It calls for a *40% excise tax* on employer-sponsored plans spending more than $10,200 per employee (or *$27,500 per family*). This number includes employer and employee-paid premiums and employer contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) or Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs). There will purportedly be some adjustment for areas where healthcare is more expensive and for employees in high-risk jobs, but the regulations have not yet been promulgated.



27500/12=$2291/month

How's it feel Mr. Rich Guy?  

Seriously, this is the problem with the whole idea of obamacare.  If you have to accept everyone at the same rate, younger, healthier people end up subsidizing us old guys.  Let me add some perspective.  My plan is employer based 80/20 1500 deductible and 6k max out of pocket for in-network.  out of network is 70/30, 3000 deductible, 12000 max out of pocket.  (family is 12k/24k max out of pocket).  For this I pay a total, including the company portion, of less than $750 for individual or about $1800 for family.  Why the difference?  Because employer based healthcare is still competitive and not governed by the ACA (yet).

And yet, even with the higher premiums and lower benefits (from your point of view), the insurers are unable to make ends meet and are dropping out of obamacare.  What does that tell you?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> Death march to a single payer system?
> 
> Obamacare has gone from the president's greatest achievement to a 'slow-motion death spiral'
> 
> Op-Ed: Obamacare is failing. And there's only one way to fix it


Single Payer was the desired outcome all along.
Then they will nationalize the system making healthcare providers government employees.
Sucks to be us.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 21, 2016)

Anybody seen this yet:Newsweek's anti-Obama cover story: Has the magazine lost all credibility? ?

Inside is:AMAZING!!!  The Cover of Liberal Newsweek Magazine.

A little late, IMHO.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 21, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Anybody seen this yet:Newsweek's anti-Obama cover story: Has the magazine lost all credibility? ?
> 
> Inside is:AMAZING!!!  The Cover of Liberal Newsweek Magazine.
> 
> A little late, IMHO.



Those are from 2012 and '13.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Those are from 2012 and '13.



Yeah, I did see the date. A friend of mine sent me the editorial, and it is what it is. I'm wondering if they are expecting this give Trump a boost.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 21, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Yeah, I did see the date. A friend of mine sent me the editorial, and it is what it is. I'm wondering if they are expecting this give Trump a boost.



Articles from 2012 and 2013? Who would expect that?


----------



## compforce (Aug 22, 2016)

How about a more recent article...  Wisconsin looking at premium increases of 5 - 37%

Health insurers eye steep increases


----------



## compforce (Aug 22, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Single Payer was the desired outcome all along.
> Then they will nationalize the system making healthcare providers government employees.
> Sucks to be us.



and raise taxes to pay for it...


----------



## AKkeith (Aug 22, 2016)

@compforce- I guess I'm thankful I'm on an individual policy not employer.



What happens in Alaska when no company wants to offer any insurance because they lose so much money?

"The picture became particularly grim in Alaska, where the number of insurers offering plans to individuals is set to drop to one for 2017."


Alaska scrambles to prevent Obamacare collapse


----------



## compforce (Aug 22, 2016)

AKkeith said:


> @compforce- I guess I'm thankful I'm on an individual policy not employer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I must have said something a bit wrong.  My whole point was that individual plans are much worse than employer plans because of obamacare.


----------



## AKkeith (Aug 22, 2016)

compforce said:


> I must have said something a bit wrong.  My whole point was that individual plans are much worse than employer plans because of obamacare.


What I got from your post is that the employer plans will soon be "Cadillac plans" and subject to an additional 40% fee. 

I wish my employer offered a better plan. They offered me a comparable plan but for $2800 a month.


----------



## compforce (Aug 22, 2016)

What I was saying is that if your plan goes up just a tiny bit, it will be a cadillac plan even though the benefits are significantly lower than my employer plan, which is cheaper


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 22, 2016)

I was blown away when I found out how much people pay.

My 2 sisters own their own businesses....and are paying $2000 to $3000 a month for Obamacare....:wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 22, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I was blown away when I found out how much people pay.
> 
> My 2 sisters own their own businesses....and are paying $2000 to $3000 a month for Obamacare....:wall:


Your sisters are self employed ladies....

Seriously, ACA was the first step towards a national healthcare System that will be as capable/efficient as the VA.


----------



## AMRUSMCR (Aug 22, 2016)

We have had serious discussions, in-house, regarding removing all employer sponsored health plans due to the employer shared responsibility penalties & cadillac tax.  To us, with the significant increase in price, and being moved by insurers from composite to age-rated premiums, it's no longer a benefit or something we can use to recruit or retain people since the premiums significantly increase for those over 45 and the fixed dollar employer contribution doesn't offset them much.  (I fucking hate this age-rated shit....).  In my benefits letter I urge folks to look at several sites and compare rates because they might find a better individual plan/rate than what we're able to offer under our group plans.

Thanks to the penalties, fees & taxes it's the Damocles sword of financial liability to a small business if they do try to offer insurance so we're at the point of not offering if it we're not legally required to.


----------



## Brill (Sep 29, 2016)

Ouch! This Admin violating law?

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the 3-year transitional reinsurance program established under section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The program, which is financed by statutorily required contributions from participating health insurance issuers and group health plans, makes payments to eligible issuers, to stabilize health insurance premiums and encourage issuer participation in the health insurance markets. Section 1341 designates a specified amount of collections from issuers for reinsurance payments and also directs the deposit of a specified amount of collections in the general fund of the United States Treasury (Treasury). HHS asserts that when collections fall short of the amounts specified in statute the agency has authority to allocate all collections for reinsurance payments, making deposits in the Treasury only if collections reach the amounts specified for reinsurance payments in section 1341. *HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute's directive to deposit amounts from collections under the transitional reinsurance program in the Treasury and is required to collect and deposit amounts for the Treasury, regardless of whether its collections fall short of the amounts specified in statute for reinsurance payments.* HHS may not use amounts collected for the Treasury to make reinsurance payments.

Department of Health and Human Services: Transitional Reinsurance Program


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> Ouch! This Admin violating law?
> 
> The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the 3-year transitional reinsurance program established under section 1341 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The program, which is financed by statutorily required contributions from participating health insurance issuers and group health plans, makes payments to eligible issuers, to stabilize health insurance premiums and encourage issuer participation in the health insurance markets. Section 1341 designates a specified amount of collections from issuers for reinsurance payments and also directs the deposit of a specified amount of collections in the general fund of the United States Treasury (Treasury). HHS asserts that when collections fall short of the amounts specified in statute the agency has authority to allocate all collections for reinsurance payments, making deposits in the Treasury only if collections reach the amounts specified for reinsurance payments in section 1341. *HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute's directive to deposit amounts from collections under the transitional reinsurance program in the Treasury and is required to collect and deposit amounts for the Treasury, regardless of whether its collections fall short of the amounts specified in statute for reinsurance payments.* HHS may not use amounts collected for the Treasury to make reinsurance payments.
> 
> Department of Health and Human Services: Transitional Reinsurance Program


Ingles, por favor?


----------



## Brill (Sep 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Ingles, por favor?



Treasury was waiting until a specific amount of money would be generated before collecting payment but since the amounts were too low, they weren't collecting ANYTHING so the USG was, in effect, bailing out ACA without authorization despite being warned.

Report Says Obama Administration Failed To Follow Health Law

In addition to shady shit, "wait, there's more!"

Obama administration may use obscure fund to pay billions to ACA insurers

This administration's contempt for Congress is disgusting.


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

Minnesota is taking a beating on their exchange.

News  / Minnesota.gov


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 21, 2016)

*MN Governor wants to use state surplus to subsidize "affordable" health care*

I quit. I just quit. 

Dayton Regrets Use Of 'No Longer Affordable' Health Care Remark

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO/AP) — Gov. Mark Dayton said he regrets that his statement made last week about the Affordable Care Act being “no longer affordable to increasing numbers of people” is being used against Democratic candidates in the 2016 election cycle.

On Friday morning, Dayton said he wants to see the $313 million earmarked for the state’s “rainy day fund” next year to be applied to assisting Minnesotans with their health plan rate hikes.


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *MN Governor wants to use state surplus to subsidize "affordable" health care*
> 
> I quit. I just quit.
> 
> ...



Who pays into the MN rainy day fund?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> Who pays into the MN rainy day fund?



ALL of us in the glorious state of Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes taxes.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 22, 2016)

B


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 22, 2016)

Yepp....act now and you get the home of your dreams....:blkeye:


----------



## Centermass (Oct 22, 2016)

NC now only has 1 ACA health care insurer left - BCBS and that's it. 

My guess is Nancy now knows what's "In it." Then again....squirrel!!


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

Centermass said:


> NC now only has 1 ACA health care insurer left - BCBS and that's it.
> 
> My guess is Nancy now knows what's "In it." Then again....squirrel!!



Funny...majority of federal employees have BCBS.


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2016)

HHS estimates rates to increase an average of 25% next year.

Benchmark Obamacare premiums jump 25 percent next year, HHS says


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 24, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Barrack has finally admitted that his health care plan is more like a "starter home": Obama likens Obamacare to a starter home.
> 
> To me, it's more like a double wide, with half of it missing.





lindy said:


> HHS estimates rates to increase an average of 25% next year.
> 
> Benchmark Obamacare premiums jump 25 percent next year, HHS says





Ooh-Rah said:


> *MN Governor wants to use state surplus to subsidize "affordable" health care*
> 
> I quit. I just quit.
> 
> ...



I am no longer taking insurance at all because of the expensive, shitty-coverage-ridden, treatment-dictating fiasco it has now become.

Patients get a receipt that they may submit to their insurance company for direct reimbursement.  It is extremely rare that the patients are not reimbursed because the companies don't want to piss off their customers.

ETA: This has the added benefit of reducing my staff/ administrative load/ overhead, so patients pay less out of pocket for services.  If they want to just pay cash, in most cases it isn't much more than what they'll be co-paying on their terrible insurance anyway.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> Funny...majority of federal employees have BCBS.



And it comes out to roughly $1,550 a month for my plan (including the Government's share).


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 26, 2016)

New users guide to Obamacare...its a picture....


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 6, 2016)

Pinky swear....


----------



## compforce (Nov 6, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> And it comes out to roughly $1,550 a month for my plan (including the Government's share).



And it's on its way out of the network...  (sorry, I just wanted to use both versions of "its" in one sentence  )  BCBS is what I am talking about

Anthem Threatens Obamacare Retreat If Results Don’t Improve


----------



## Brill (Nov 7, 2016)

compforce said:


> And it's on its way out of the network...  (sorry, I just wanted to use both versions of "its" in one sentence  )  BCBS is what I am talking about
> 
> Anthem Threatens Obamacare Retreat If Results Don’t Improve



Uh oh.


----------

