People need something to strive for. She heard she could by insurance for $20 per week if she increased her income. If it worked that way for her that is great. Wouldn't it be worse if she let go her work to get free Medicaid?
4
It's as simple as this, the best system to cover everyone is a Single Payer Insurance System. It could cover visitors from other countries, too.
The Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare was actually developed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as a counter to the Hilary Clinton designed plan. The Clinton Plan was an Employer Mandate as opposed to an Individual Mandate that is the ACA. Both leave people uninsured. Both are flawed. Both cost more to administer and keep the cost of health care higher than a Single Payer plan.
Up to 30% of health expenses are administrative and result from dealing with the paperwork for myriad insurance companies and HMOs. Single Payer would eliminate most of that expense. The USA is the only so called civilized country that doesn't cover everyone, automatically, upon the day they were born. The USA still has a higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy than any industrialized country.
27 countries have lower infant mortality. 41 countries have a longer life expectancy (this is an improvement since the ACA so it isn't all bad).
The Affordable Care Act AKA Obamacare was actually developed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as a counter to the Hilary Clinton designed plan. The Clinton Plan was an Employer Mandate as opposed to an Individual Mandate that is the ACA. Both leave people uninsured. Both are flawed. Both cost more to administer and keep the cost of health care higher than a Single Payer plan.
Up to 30% of health expenses are administrative and result from dealing with the paperwork for myriad insurance companies and HMOs. Single Payer would eliminate most of that expense. The USA is the only so called civilized country that doesn't cover everyone, automatically, upon the day they were born. The USA still has a higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy than any industrialized country.
27 countries have lower infant mortality. 41 countries have a longer life expectancy (this is an improvement since the ACA so it isn't all bad).
12
A "Hilary (sic) Clinton designed plan" could not have been "designed" in or before 1989, unless she did so in hopes that her husband would garner the Democratic nomination. He did so in 1992, taking office in January, 1993. Would you clarify your facts, please? Thanks!
6
Hmmm...working more to get what you want? A brand-new concept in obamaworld!
7
Once these people become sick and can't report to their hourly jobs, they will lose their jobs. Then their income will drop and they will lose their subsidy and thus their insurance. Will they then have to repay the monthly subsidies they did get because they again didn't qualify for a subsidy? I suppose they could not report their drop in income until they file their taxes at year end and then have to repay it all. Of course, the only way the government could get their sudsidies back would be to withhold their tax refund but since they earn so little they probably won't be due a refund. Working extra hours is not an ideal solution, to put it mildly.
8
I wonder who those impacted by the republican state governors, etc voted for republicans or did not bother to vote at all.
2
At $19,000 a year, my son does not receive any assistance or break for health insurance, which costs $200/month and has a $5000 deductible. He's really struggling to pay monthly expenses, car insurance, and rent. I do not get it--but neither does the government.
3
Your son is exempt from the mandate to buy insurance because $200/month exceeds 8% of his $19,000 annual income. For purposes of the mandate, premiums greater than 8% of income are deemed unaffordable by the ACA. Specifically, if he can't find an ACA compliant plan that costs him no more than $127/month ($19,000x.08=$1,520/12=$127) he is exempt from the mandate to buy insurance.
6
He may be exempt but he may still want health insurance.
11
How is it helpful to be "exempt" from the mandate to buy insurance?
How will he then take care of his healthcare needs?
If $200/month is considered unaffordable for him, they why is this man not eligible for a subsidy?
How will he then take care of his healthcare needs?
If $200/month is considered unaffordable for him, they why is this man not eligible for a subsidy?
3
Maybe simpler laws and review by experts outside the ruling class, who should model the law and check if there are holes and whether you or not can keep your policy and or insurance company might be better.
However understanding the insurance companies [who contribute millions in campaign contributions] wrote the coverage part of the law and then the ruling class added pork, etc Thuswe understand what happened
However understanding the insurance companies [who contribute millions in campaign contributions] wrote the coverage part of the law and then the ruling class added pork, etc Thuswe understand what happened
5
"Alma Ramos, a soft-spoken prep cook at a Tex-Mex restaurant, was eager to sign up for health insurance through the new HealthCare.gov marketplace last year." This and the accompanying photograph of Ms. Ramos and her family are obviously designed to pull at the heart strings. It's a typical pitch one sees on TV whether for disabled vets or mistreated animals. The pitch being made here, however, is not for individual contributions made voluntarily but for further wealth redistribution enforced involuntarily through our system of taxation. Ironically, Ms. Ramos herself does not seem to be asking or waiting for a free handout but has helped herself. Is that so bad? We already have a provision for charitable tax deductions. How many liberals take advantage of it? It's always easier to "redistribute" rather than to give from one's heart or to make others pay for one's own charitable omissions.
5
she is now earning $24K a year? why should government even be involved with her life/family? this is the problem of our whole society these days.
Sure, we know what percentages the well-to-do give to charity, compared to the percentages given by the true middle class and working poor. You know how charitable those job creators can be!
8
Ed, you write like someone who is well enough off not to have to worry about the well being of your fellow citizens.
If taxation (unless you oppose it altogether) is not about a legally required obligation on citizens to fund the government which provides services to its citizens, what is it for? Does not the Defense Dept, for example, not have the aim of protecting the country, including everyone living here.
Why do you label the part of taxation that enables the people to stay healthy and to get health care a form of "redistribution?" Perhaps, health care, in your mind, is some kind of luxury some of us can afford and others cannot.
As far as I can tell, among wealthy countries (and some not so wealthy) health care is a social obligation, like education for children and roads everyone can drive on, and bridges that are safe for the poor and the rich alike.
For the record, I do make charitable deductions. But Ms. Ramos and her family and millions like her should not have to depend on voluntary generosity to get health care.
If taxation (unless you oppose it altogether) is not about a legally required obligation on citizens to fund the government which provides services to its citizens, what is it for? Does not the Defense Dept, for example, not have the aim of protecting the country, including everyone living here.
Why do you label the part of taxation that enables the people to stay healthy and to get health care a form of "redistribution?" Perhaps, health care, in your mind, is some kind of luxury some of us can afford and others cannot.
As far as I can tell, among wealthy countries (and some not so wealthy) health care is a social obligation, like education for children and roads everyone can drive on, and bridges that are safe for the poor and the rich alike.
For the record, I do make charitable deductions. But Ms. Ramos and her family and millions like her should not have to depend on voluntary generosity to get health care.
7
we need more laws to have "unintended consequences" where people work and earn to fend for themselves- enough with the paying people not to work. And why is the ACA so poorly written? Has the author been fired or reprimanded? I didn't think so
7
President Obama just presented a new budget to Congress that attempts to "spread the wealth". The only budget change we need is to close the tax loopholes that allows the wealthiest to pay US$4.5 million for a 30-second advertisement during the super bowl then fly in on private jets to entertain "clients" in their corporate-owned private boxes and write it all off as business expenses. Of course, the same people own the media so they also profit from the advertising and promotion. And we wonder why there is unfathomable wealth inequality in America. That alone would pay for Universal Health coverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX#Advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX#Advertising
4
The more we "discover" what was in the lousy piece of legislation, the worse it becomes. And it literally has flung open the US Treasury for plundering for the health insurance companies and pharma. It's unbelievable. Sometimes - doing nothing is actually better than making it worse. Single payer was what we needed, but this Affordable CareLESS Act is insult to injury. Even the drafters have ridicule it.
6
Had the teaparty/GOP not decided, through blind hatred and racism, to oppose anything this president proposed-- even things their ilk had previously supported-- a better bill might have been negotiated and passed. This was the best the "loyal" opposition was unable to block. Eventually-universal health care (even for teaparty/GOPers).
5
Actually, the biggest problem is Teddy Kennedy hand picked Obama over Hillary, and then died. He could have helped Obama temper his arrogance and ineptitude
2
I think that the real point is that the red states that refused to expand Medicaid as intended by Obamacare have succeeded in their goal of denying their own citizens access to healthcare insurance. I used to think that this was an untended consequence of the GOP's opposition to all things Obama, but I am more and more inclined to believe that denying their poorest and weakest citizens of the benefits of government is actually a goal in and of itself. How else can they prove that government for the people actually can perish from this earth?
4
So the single mother of 3 will work more hours to pay for her insurance but now has to figure out how to pay for more child care and how to make sure her kids get their home work taken care of and give quality time to them when she has to take more time away form them. She also has to pay for the extra time to get to and from this extra job and probably the food she has to buy because she can't cook at home or because she can't afford a house with a yard to grow her own let alone have the time to care for a garden to save money to grow her own food to be healthier to save money and healthcare. Oh yes the work time that causes the stress that causes her health issues such as heart disease and high blood pressure...oh she has plenty of time to work out too so she can keep her weight down to avoid the obesity that sitting on the job the extra hours she has to work to pay for the insurance she has to pay extra for...because that's the best way to avoid what?!
9
I think you're interpolating too much. Alma Ramos does not necessarily need you to worry over the details of her life and the choices she has made. If you care so much, I would suggest you give to charity. That at least would be your own personal choice and not something government imposes on you.
7
Nearly every week there's a new story about another problem with this health insurance law - and always something that impacts regular working people negatively. From the very beginning this law was designed to profit the health-industrial industry first, and if it helped some people, that was the secondary consideration. It's shameful and immoral that with other advanced countries better health care outcomes and costs, that this, the most "exceptional country on earth" still has this privatized system. There is absolutely no decent justification for this - for the hoops that people continually have to jump through, the red tape they have to immerse themselves with, the uncertainty over costs and coverage and taxes. It's a reflection of the lack of decency that Republicans have that they wouldn't expand Medicaid, but it's the Democratic party that gift-wrapped this monstrosity for their benefactors in big business. What a sick joke this whole thing is.
6
The deepest irony about Obamacare is that because ALL Republicans were understood to be against ANYTHING Obama proposed it gave certain Democratic Senators way too much power to ruin the bill ( Baucus and Nelson). Health care must be de-coupled from employment. The bill was too full of compromises designed to pick up Republican ( and Right Wing Democrats) votes, which created and monster of a Bill. A unified Democratic party ( hahaha) and a President who understood the perfidy of those who opposed him would have given us a better bill. The Republicans who blame Obama for the hideous bill have only themselves to blame for the mess of intricacy Baucus et al came up with.
9
I'm baffled, the article states that what the government considers poverty level income (needed to receive the subsidy) rises with larger family size. Logic and fairness dictate the opposite, that income cut-off should drop with more people to support.
2
It so inspiring that a number of states have held firm against the horrid intrusive oppressive monstrous federal government. I have it on good authority that the government is preparing to send people who vote republican to a colony on Mars with help for space aliens of course. So hold firm against those hooligans in Washington!!
This is another legacy of the Roberts court, which, in my mind, will go down as the worst in history.
2
Another Washington destructive hand out. There should be NO free rides, either you pay into the system or you don't get it. In government program after government program, you loose your ability to acquire said program if you work too much, so there is an inherent incentive not to work.
Furthermore, the base minimum for receiving ANY government assistance is the ability to speak some English. You call into government assistance of anytime, and it is always in English and Mexican, as if there is NO minimum expectation for a person to receive tax funded "assistance".
We live in a time of no accountability, either in government, from our elites, or from our poor, which of course leaves the dwindling middle class to pick up the burden, as always.
Furthermore, the base minimum for receiving ANY government assistance is the ability to speak some English. You call into government assistance of anytime, and it is always in English and Mexican, as if there is NO minimum expectation for a person to receive tax funded "assistance".
We live in a time of no accountability, either in government, from our elites, or from our poor, which of course leaves the dwindling middle class to pick up the burden, as always.
9
President Obama and all of the members of congress who passed Obama Care should be required to read this article and the comments that people made. There are more problems created than solved by this law. The present congress should hold hearing on how to repeal and replace this law. The American people should have been brought into the process in the beginning. As more articles show more flaws in the law, perhaps the American people will demand to be heard.
7
If one auto repair shop charged $2000 for a service that a nearby shop provides for only $400 the owner would be thrown in jail, the customers would sue, and the community wouldn't tolerate the practice.
So why are some hospitals, especially the "non-profit" ones, allowed to get away with this? Without universal price transparency the US health care system will continue to reward greed at the expense of taxpayers and of everyone who cannot afford to buy insurance.
So why are some hospitals, especially the "non-profit" ones, allowed to get away with this? Without universal price transparency the US health care system will continue to reward greed at the expense of taxpayers and of everyone who cannot afford to buy insurance.
6
Per the article: "low-income, working adults who are caught in what experts call the coverage gap, eligible for neither federal subsidies nor Medicaid because they live in states that have declined to expand Medicaid under the health care law."
I don't call it a coverage gap. I call it what it is. The American way, Texas style; cruel and stupid. Remember that reality if Perry or Cruz gets nominated or for that matter Jeb Bush.
As my Congressional Representative Ted Poe always says to close his speeches on the floor of the House: "And that's just the way it is." and closes his written correspondence with "God and Texas" with no reference to the people he serves or the Constitution he is sworn to uphold and govern by. I doubt if he has ever seriously thought much about what the Preamble says his job is as my Representative in govt. But then, neither have most of his constituents. If they had, he would not be there.
And therein lies the real problem.
I don't call it a coverage gap. I call it what it is. The American way, Texas style; cruel and stupid. Remember that reality if Perry or Cruz gets nominated or for that matter Jeb Bush.
As my Congressional Representative Ted Poe always says to close his speeches on the floor of the House: "And that's just the way it is." and closes his written correspondence with "God and Texas" with no reference to the people he serves or the Constitution he is sworn to uphold and govern by. I doubt if he has ever seriously thought much about what the Preamble says his job is as my Representative in govt. But then, neither have most of his constituents. If they had, he would not be there.
And therein lies the real problem.
10
The ACA became flawed because the HI industry gained too much power in writing the bill. Their envoy Karen Ignani got the provisions she wanted then got Republicans to try and go back to the own system. This was a Machiavellian endeavor by the right from the get go. None of the current issues were policies favored by Democrats. The Republicans tried to doom the ACA by setting up straw men they could vote against and provide political fodder for their own ends.
1
Republicans refused to support it even after getting provisions for a public option removed thanks to Sen. Baucus. And provisions were included that republicans did want.
3
I'm a little confused by this story. Is it a bad thing that people are encouraged to work more to support their families and get them insurance? I suspect Ms. Ramos and Hillenbrand appreciate their insurance a lot more than those who just get it handed to them.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi was correct when she told us we had to pass it to see what was in it. All of the problems described here are the result of a poorly planned totally partisan bill. Don't blame the states that didn't expand Medicaid - the bill didn't require it. This mess belongs to the Democrats and Mr. Obama try as you will to blame mean republicans.
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi was correct when she told us we had to pass it to see what was in it. All of the problems described here are the result of a poorly planned totally partisan bill. Don't blame the states that didn't expand Medicaid - the bill didn't require it. This mess belongs to the Democrats and Mr. Obama try as you will to blame mean republicans.
14
i'm not confused at all about why you'd want to have a single mom work harder and spend less time at home, since it gives you grounds for complaining about her irresponsibility as a mother.
I am, however, a tad bit mystified as to why you'd howl about Obamacare for encouraging people to work more.
I am, however, a tad bit mystified as to why you'd howl about Obamacare for encouraging people to work more.
1
It's certainly not a bad thing to work more, but there comes a point at which there is no real time to look after your kids.
Requiring people to make less than $4000/year to get Medicaid is criminal and nothing but hatred towards the poor.
ACA is certainly NOT a mess and has given hope to millions who has no chance to buy healthcare before.
Requiring people to make less than $4000/year to get Medicaid is criminal and nothing but hatred towards the poor.
ACA is certainly NOT a mess and has given hope to millions who has no chance to buy healthcare before.
8
I'm a little confused by your not understanding the position 4 million American are in because their Govenors choose to make Health Care political.
The people sited in this article were lucky there were able to add hours at work. But that is because the economy is improving, no thanks to the Republicans. Trust me the poor work very, very hard.
This is not a mess, this is huge program that has just gotten off it's feet and something that we will be working to strenghten and improve as the years go by and, unfortunately, with no help from the Republicans. Why they hate their fellow Americans having any sense of security is beyond me. No health care, no social security, no healthy labor laws, no protective banking regulations. Let's just squeeze every last drop out of the American worker before we discard him.
I blame every Govenor, in every State that didn't expand Medicaid, absolutley. They have, with gusto, contributed to a lot of needless suffering.
The people sited in this article were lucky there were able to add hours at work. But that is because the economy is improving, no thanks to the Republicans. Trust me the poor work very, very hard.
This is not a mess, this is huge program that has just gotten off it's feet and something that we will be working to strenghten and improve as the years go by and, unfortunately, with no help from the Republicans. Why they hate their fellow Americans having any sense of security is beyond me. No health care, no social security, no healthy labor laws, no protective banking regulations. Let's just squeeze every last drop out of the American worker before we discard him.
I blame every Govenor, in every State that didn't expand Medicaid, absolutley. They have, with gusto, contributed to a lot of needless suffering.
8
It seems counter productive to cater to the very same industry that is the cause of our shoddy health care system if you can call it that and that's what the ACA does. It has helped millions.. a little but we still have a system of denial unless you are well to do.
8
What a shame Mr. Obama and the Dems that controlled Congress and pushed Obamacare through didn't do a better job.
If only they had tried to work with Republicans, a far better program could have been enacted.
If only they had tried to work with Republicans, a far better program could have been enacted.
9
That's what they did, and this was the law produced. The worm turned after the compromises they wanted actually went through. In other words they never wanted any reform. Remember the deep sixing of the public option?
4
The Republicans had their chances to pass meaningful healthcare reform but failed to do so. The closest they got was the Heritage Foundation's plan, which was proposed as an alternative to so-called "HillaryCare" in the 1990's. The Heritage Foundation plan is very similar to "RomneyCare" in Massachusetts and Obamacare. In fact, it can be said that Obamacare is the Republican healthcare plan. Maybe that is why you believe that "a far better program could have been acted," of which we are in agreement.
6
thanks for my first bellylaugh of the day.
5
Wow. It's almost like no one read the bill before passing it.
13
Um, they did read the bill. It's Texas that chose not to expand Medicaid, which it was allowed to do after SCOTUS ruled.
It's almost like you didn't read the article before commenting.
It's almost like you didn't read the article before commenting.
8
America desperately needs affordable Universal Health Care for all citizens with serious insurance/provider cost controls. NOW.
15
Insurance companies are already under the tightest gross margin controls of any industry including your neighborhood utilities and coops, thanks to PPACA.
That consumer protection is already installed, nationwide, even on private carriers that cover Medicaid, Medicare and Part D.
But on Docs/Hospitals? Other than Medicare controls on a few things, they are pretty much on their own to charge you whatever they see fit.
WR
That consumer protection is already installed, nationwide, even on private carriers that cover Medicaid, Medicare and Part D.
But on Docs/Hospitals? Other than Medicare controls on a few things, they are pretty much on their own to charge you whatever they see fit.
WR
2
As-is, ACA is badly flawed. The usual practice would be to pass a technical corrections bill to fix drafting errors in the original. That should have been done early, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Now, because ACA is so contentious in its content, and was passed without a single Republican vote while using the parliamentary mechanism called reconciliation, it is impossible to get that done.
Health care costs are a bottomless pit. How many of us are willing to die when there is another treatment to try? Until we face the ethical dilemma of how to ration health care expenditures, we will continue to argue without resolving the problem.
And if we do confront this ethical-economic problem we won't like our choices.
Health care costs are a bottomless pit. How many of us are willing to die when there is another treatment to try? Until we face the ethical dilemma of how to ration health care expenditures, we will continue to argue without resolving the problem.
And if we do confront this ethical-economic problem we won't like our choices.
5
How about we start deporting illegal aliens who have no rights to our tax dollars and social saftey net...unfortunately, the same people who believe they are entitled to other peoples money also believe that millions of uneducated, people are here to work hard and pay taxes.
Illegal immigration and visa overstays are destroying your country and your government healthcare will include getting inline behind your favorite special citizens when healthcare is being rationed out and you will not be 1st in line.
Liberal democrats are nothing more than totalitarian socialists looking to control every aspect of your life because they know better and they will do it with your money taken at the threat of jail unless of course your one of them like Al Sharpton who doesn't have to pay taxes due to all the humanitarian work he is involved in....while he is not at the WH advising Obama...what a country.
Illegal immigration and visa overstays are destroying your country and your government healthcare will include getting inline behind your favorite special citizens when healthcare is being rationed out and you will not be 1st in line.
Liberal democrats are nothing more than totalitarian socialists looking to control every aspect of your life because they know better and they will do it with your money taken at the threat of jail unless of course your one of them like Al Sharpton who doesn't have to pay taxes due to all the humanitarian work he is involved in....while he is not at the WH advising Obama...what a country.
1
The sad thing is that, even though she got a policy and she got the money from the government to pay the subsidy for the majority of the monthly cost of the policy she will still be unable to use the stuff because the policies have such high deductibles and out of pocket costs. The only ones getting anything out of the ACA are the insurance companies who get the premium subsidies from the government coffers and never have to pay anything out because the folks that have the plans never are able to afford the out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. You would think that the ACA would have actually been written so that it did provide something more than an insurance card for people. If you are going to take the taxpayer money and spend it like thins, you should at least have written it so that they would be able to get medical attention.
13
Not necessarily. If she bought a silver plan and her income is below 250% of FPL the Fed will also buy down her deductibles and cost sharing. As incomes approach 100% of FPL, the deductibles and copays actually go to ZERO.
Everyone forgets, there are TWO layers of federal assistance on www.healthcare.gov: ATC's for premium reduction AND cash for cost sharing reductions.
She may very well have a policy with a $0 to $250 deductible.
WR
Everyone forgets, there are TWO layers of federal assistance on www.healthcare.gov: ATC's for premium reduction AND cash for cost sharing reductions.
She may very well have a policy with a $0 to $250 deductible.
WR
3
ACA meant these poor people to have Medicaid, which would have covered the costs.
When Texas, and many other GOP states, chose not to expand Medicaid, it caused this dilemma.
When Texas, and many other GOP states, chose not to expand Medicaid, it caused this dilemma.
1
No, when the power hungry corrupt democrats passed this bill along party line votes with no input from any Republican and then you wonder why republican states will not start exchanges....well this is the united states of America.....nothing about healthcare in the constitution then it is the states right to not go along with the feds and I for one am glad they did.
You want the feds to take care of you...then you take what you get and quit complaining. There is no free healthcare or lunch despite what you may believe...work harder millions on welfare depend on your tax dollars.
You want the feds to take care of you...then you take what you get and quit complaining. There is no free healthcare or lunch despite what you may believe...work harder millions on welfare depend on your tax dollars.
My wife's aunt lives in Georgia. She is disabled and broke her hip recently in a fall. Her ONLY source of income is Social Security she receives under her deceased spouse's coverage, but still she makes too much for Medicaid because our idiot governor refused the expansion. There is a special place in hell for those like Deal who, for political gain with the right wing idiots, lets hundreds of Georgians die each year for lack of health care.
38
Raised in GA, i feel your pain. GA is not the only state that treats it's elderly so bad. I now live in VA and the state legislature there has also refused the Medicaid expansion. This causes my 84 year old Aunt, who lives solely on her SS income, to pay $591 a month to qualify for a Medicaid exemption to allow her to have home health aides.
After her bills are paid, she has basically $50 a week for food and Dr's visits or anything else she might need.
Ridiculous.
After her bills are paid, she has basically $50 a week for food and Dr's visits or anything else she might need.
Ridiculous.
4
Maybe nobody should rely on the government for their healthcare. Too bad your savior democrats passed such a partisan plan under the cover of night on christmas eve using reconciliation.
Choke on your obamacare you losers.....this is America if you cant make it here on your own then you are the problem.
It is not the governments job to provide you with food, healthcare, spending money, a place to live, and so on...it is your job and if you cant do it then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
You should have studied in school, you should have used a condom, you should get up every morning and go to work ...if you did those things you would probably have health care.
Choke on your obamacare you losers.....this is America if you cant make it here on your own then you are the problem.
It is not the governments job to provide you with food, healthcare, spending money, a place to live, and so on...it is your job and if you cant do it then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
You should have studied in school, you should have used a condom, you should get up every morning and go to work ...if you did those things you would probably have health care.
How did you wife's aunt vote in 2014, 2012, etc. How about those in her age cohort? Not sure, but betting republican.
1
Wrong headline:
The correct headline is:
" Piling on Work to Escape GOP in Health Law"
This phenomenon is directly attributable to GOP Death Panel states.
Why not report the unfettered reason for the Republican's continued war on the poor ?
The correct headline is:
" Piling on Work to Escape GOP in Health Law"
This phenomenon is directly attributable to GOP Death Panel states.
Why not report the unfettered reason for the Republican's continued war on the poor ?
54
Many in the GOP don't support abortion on demand. Those that do need to help democrats charter a new party, Neohypocritics, would suffice.
2
I'm trying to understand if I just read this right: a single mother of 3 was previously making LESS than $24k, and yet was considered to be making 'too much' money to quality for federal assistance to buy health insurance??
30
One word: Texas.
2
That's because the writers of ACA assumed she would qualify for Medicaid. Those who qualified for Medicaid got no subsidies.
When SCOTUS ruled that states did not have to expand Medicaid, many GOP-led states chose not to. So, you have poor people who aren't poor enough to get Medicaid (In Texas you have to make less than $4000! to qualify) but can't get the subsidy to buy private insurance because ACA assumed states would expand Medicaid for these people.
When SCOTUS ruled that states did not have to expand Medicaid, many GOP-led states chose not to. So, you have poor people who aren't poor enough to get Medicaid (In Texas you have to make less than $4000! to qualify) but can't get the subsidy to buy private insurance because ACA assumed states would expand Medicaid for these people.
2
Because she would have been eligible for Medicaid if her state had expanded the upper income limit for Medicaid as was mandated by the ACA (Obamacare). However, the Supreme Court ruled against precedent to declare that the Medicaid expansion was optional for the states, not mandatory. The fault lies with her state's governor and/or legislature, not with federal government or the ACA.
3
Two words: National Healthcare!
11
A few more words:
17.5% VAT on everything you buy or sell.
WR
17.5% VAT on everything you buy or sell.
WR
2
The writer completely underemphasized the cause of this sadism by saying "the Supreme Court allowed states to opt out of expanding Medicaid, and 22 states, most of them Republican-controlled, have done so."
All of the affected 22 states have GOP legislatures and almost all have GOP governors and it is the Republican state legislatures that are actively withholding expanded Medicaid insurance from the working poor.
The full explanation is that there are 22 GOP Death Panel states in America that will directly contribute to 7,000 premature deaths each year.
One of the main unspoken Republican Party principles for a very long time has been to tell Americans to "drop dead" in one way or another.
Nice people.
All of the affected 22 states have GOP legislatures and almost all have GOP governors and it is the Republican state legislatures that are actively withholding expanded Medicaid insurance from the working poor.
The full explanation is that there are 22 GOP Death Panel states in America that will directly contribute to 7,000 premature deaths each year.
One of the main unspoken Republican Party principles for a very long time has been to tell Americans to "drop dead" in one way or another.
Nice people.
53
The irony to this is that people who live in those non-Medicaid expanding GOP states are paying taxes for ACA that are going to pay for Medicaid expansion in other states.
2
You mean paying taxes to support the interest on the BORROWING that the Fed is doing to supplement these new spending programs.
It's not like we have the money, or ever will. The Fed will still borrow between $450B and $600B even this year with our improved economy and evil, horrible, heinous sequestration.
So no, your taxes are not getting spent in other states. All new spending (like the Medicaid Expansion) is borrowed money.
WR
It's not like we have the money, or ever will. The Fed will still borrow between $450B and $600B even this year with our improved economy and evil, horrible, heinous sequestration.
So no, your taxes are not getting spent in other states. All new spending (like the Medicaid Expansion) is borrowed money.
WR
1
Same situation here in WI where Gov Scott Walker refused Medicaid extension. He also turned down federal grant for a high speed rail link between Madison and Milwaukee, gutted K-12 education, and is in the process of cutting $500 million (in the last two budgets) of University system funding. Meanwhile tax breaks to corporations and wealthy donors continue unabated, including a proposal for a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. No wonder we rank DEAD LAST in Midwest economies and have a $220 million transportation budget shortfall that he proposes to eliminate by more borrowing, not raising taxes of the wealthiest.
And this guy is running for President?
And this guy is running for President?
18
Insurance companies do not set the prices of medical services. Our medical services are expensive and the already complicated insurance system was just made more complex by the ACA. The bill (that no one read) has done nothing to lower the costs of services.
Our biggest issues are preventing medical bankruptcies and covering pre-existing conditions. That's it. There is no reason why certain procedures cost $100,000... although they are billed at $100k, the insurance will negotiate to $20k.
We need price transparency. NOW!
Our biggest issues are preventing medical bankruptcies and covering pre-existing conditions. That's it. There is no reason why certain procedures cost $100,000... although they are billed at $100k, the insurance will negotiate to $20k.
We need price transparency. NOW!
20
under the PPACA, the prices for the top 100 medical procedures at every hospital and clinic in the country has been published for the last two years. Might want to look it up.
Contrary to most political pundits and lazy journalists, there are many cost saving features in the ACA, including the creation of Accountable Care Organizations and penalties for unnecessary hospital re-admissions. Price transparency is a red herring for reform. It will do nothing to lower costs to the patient because when you're seriously ill you're not going to negotiate for the best price or simply be looking for the cheapest provider. Price transparency between insurers will lead to collusion between insurers because they are exempt from federal anti-trust laws. However, price transparency that involves government oversight may expose some flagrant fraud and over-billing.
And then there is the family glitch. My husband works and has coverage provided as part of his employment. Since the out of pocket cost is zero it's deemed affordable. ACA requires the insurance provider to offer coverage for other family members, but because his insurance is affordable anything that's offered to me is considered "affordable." We're raising a grandson, which resulted in me leaving the workforce a little more than 10 years ago, and his coverage is a couple hundred dollars a month, which we pay for. Mine though, at 58 and female, would be in excess of 20% of our income, even though it's "affordable. And since I am offered something that is "affordable" I am not allowed access the federal exchange, even though we would qualify for a subsidy based on income. So I am exempt. We're raising a kid who would otherwise be on the public dole and we're paying taxes that help subsidize things like $400/month *family* coverage for employees of the public university down the road, but I am prevented from obtaining truly affordable health insurance because the insurance companies decided it would be better for them to limit my choices to their "affordable" coverage or going without. In other words, we're subsidizing something that I am denied. Is it a great country or what?
9
One thing that disturbs me is that the writer seems to assume that everyone who needs more work hours, or a second job, can find one. And as for selling food from home - in my town, you would last about five minutes before the health department shut you down.
37
According to this article, it sounds like the Republicans in these states can truly claim to be job creators! Human killers because of reduced access to healthcare, yes, but JOB CREATORS!
2
And those pesky minimum wage laws that allow lazy workers to stay home during some of their free time, instead of work second and third jobs to make ends meet and to earn above the minimum needed to obtain health care.
4
Haven't had health care insurance,since 1979,can afford to self insure,don't need,don't want and won't be participating.
2
..yet the second you're in an accident and go to the ER, you will expect the taxpayer to pick up your tab
5
"we will need to pass the law in order to see if it works" I believe is what Nancy Pelosi said. Well, the chickens have come home to roost I guess and with this congress who can't work together to solve anything this new healthcare initiative will never work right. We had a congress who wanted it without knowing what was really in the law. Makes you wonder what kind of lawyers they are, sign here and we'll figure out if you got screwed later! And we have the congress who because they can't stand the current administration won't try and fix what can be fixed and get rid of what should be gotten rid of .
Only the middle class gets hosed it seems. You make to much to get any aid from anything whether it's educational help for your kids, taxes that keep going up to pay for social programs that are bloated and help no one, or gives to those, like illegals that don't deserve it, and we have the cost of healthcare that hits the middle class in the gut while those on Medicaid get it all for free and the top, top earners who don't have to worry about paying high premiums or their rent, mortgages etc.
The ACA is here and congress all of you, need to fix it so it is fair and works! I think the first thing should be all elected officials need to get their insurance thorough it and maybe something will be done then to clean this mess up
Only the middle class gets hosed it seems. You make to much to get any aid from anything whether it's educational help for your kids, taxes that keep going up to pay for social programs that are bloated and help no one, or gives to those, like illegals that don't deserve it, and we have the cost of healthcare that hits the middle class in the gut while those on Medicaid get it all for free and the top, top earners who don't have to worry about paying high premiums or their rent, mortgages etc.
The ACA is here and congress all of you, need to fix it so it is fair and works! I think the first thing should be all elected officials need to get their insurance thorough it and maybe something will be done then to clean this mess up
7
They read the law. It's GOP states like Texas that decided to not expand Medicaid that is causing this problem.
As for taxes that pay for ACA, only those who make above $250,000 pay towards ACA--hardly the middle class.
As for taxes that pay for ACA, only those who make above $250,000 pay towards ACA--hardly the middle class.
1
In order to gain some kind of legacy (hubris), the Democrats passed a law that was not thought out, was not vetted and was not allowed any discussion or amendments on.
Now, there are so many troubles with it.
Poor governing, for the sake of posterity, is all it was.
Now, there are so many troubles with it.
Poor governing, for the sake of posterity, is all it was.
11
Kindly do not forget that the insurance mandate was a Republican idea, however fiercely Mitt Romney disavowed it when he thought it suited his ambition.
It was chosen, in preference over a straightforward means-tested publicly funded system, in hopes of getting bi-partisan support. Ha!
In the end, all that a market-based solution to the absurdities of our triple-oymoronic "Health" "Care" "System" has accomplished is to demonstrate that those absurdities themselves are, in fact, market-based.
It was chosen, in preference over a straightforward means-tested publicly funded system, in hopes of getting bi-partisan support. Ha!
In the end, all that a market-based solution to the absurdities of our triple-oymoronic "Health" "Care" "System" has accomplished is to demonstrate that those absurdities themselves are, in fact, market-based.
8
Because The Heritage Foundation publishes a White Paper suggesting an insurance mandate for all citizens, that makes it a Republican Party Plank?
If yes, then there is a TON of stuff missing in their current platform.
WR
If yes, then there is a TON of stuff missing in their current platform.
WR
3
Single-payer healthcare ! Enough of the working poor scrambling to get healthcare, enough of the middle class paying too much, enough of Congress getting a Golden Cadillac plan for nothing, enough of Big Pharm, The Hospital Lobby and CEOS, and the Insurance companies raking in the money, along with the Hedge Funds betting on all of them. Healthcare is NOT a commodity. It is a needed service for all in our country.
17
A philosophical question for you:
If Healthcare is a "right" and I have that right, doesn't that imply that I also have the right to reach into your wallet, extract your favorite VISA card, and max it out, simply because I either was born with, or happened to "behave" myself into a chronic condition that has now led me to a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes?
The "right" to healthcare, is also the "right" to a whole, big, giant pile of someone else's money.
No matter how much of a needed service it is.
WR
If Healthcare is a "right" and I have that right, doesn't that imply that I also have the right to reach into your wallet, extract your favorite VISA card, and max it out, simply because I either was born with, or happened to "behave" myself into a chronic condition that has now led me to a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes?
The "right" to healthcare, is also the "right" to a whole, big, giant pile of someone else's money.
No matter how much of a needed service it is.
WR
3
WellRead29, what about health conditions, that are not the person's fault? Are you suggesting we have 2 tiers and screen people? I'm a nurse. I see more people that just have plain bad luck. Yes, I see addicts, and the like, but there for the grace of God go any of us. So yes, I'll reach into my wallet. This is our country. Our citizens are towards the end of the line, compared to other countries , getting healthcare . If all the money vultures were not waiting to swoop down, for their share, we could take care of all, even the "sinners", at a lot less cost than we currently pay.
3
Life is difficult as a single parent raising one child and yet women continue to have more. How can we help these women make better decisions?
10
Agree. Nothing will throw a woman into poverty and keep her there faster than having an unplanned child.
1
We need to use our taxpayers money for birth control so single women have a choice and don't get into trouble with families without fathers.
1
Perhaps sex education, low cost contraception, and available abortion services would be the answer, but they are against those things in Texas.
4
This should not be titled "....Gap in Health Law."
Their lack of coverage is a result of "Deliberate Actions by GOP Governors to Spite Obamacare by Cutting Their Own Constituents Off." Yes, a bit long, but far more accurate.
Their lack of coverage is a result of "Deliberate Actions by GOP Governors to Spite Obamacare by Cutting Their Own Constituents Off." Yes, a bit long, but far more accurate.
13
Wait. Does it make sense to anyone that people "don't earn enough for a subsidy"? This situation is ridiculous...and that's because the ACA is ridiculous; as are remarks regarding Republicans' vis-a-vis the ACA. All the president's supporters, folks like many commenters, had no idea what was going on with the healthcare plan, but raved about the wonders of it all. Your lack of forthrightness perpetuates these obama-made messes.
5
ACA is not ridiculous. It's the GOP states not choosing to expand Medicaid that is causing the whole problem.
3
I'm a semi-retired baby boomer. I have to work more hours so I can qualify for my company medical insurance. Before Obamacare, I needed to average 20 hours/week. After Obamacare, I need to average 30 hours per week. Because I am a part-timer, the max hours I get scheduled are 32/week. If I get sick (no sick pay for part-timers) or want to take more than one week vacation, I risk being ineligible for company medical insurance next year. For me, company medical insurance is cheaper and better than the exchange plans.
4
Sounds like your company is the problem, not Obamacare
1
Please note the coverage gap was not caused by the ACA. It was caused by states refusing to help cover their own people. Should the entire US subsidize freeloader states? Imagine the outcry if everyone else had to cover Texas' 1 million in need of health insurance!
6
Yes Ms Ramos, working more gives you money to have better choices and more opportunities. Though it seems you've missed that point.
Kudos to Texas for having a strict medicaid eligibility requirement. It is giving people an incentive to work.
Kudos to Texas for having a strict medicaid eligibility requirement. It is giving people an incentive to work.
8
Yes, when Texas put so many barriers to healthcare, people die. Yet, you praise Texas.
Great! Giving people a motivation to work harder is excellent side effect to an otherwise deeply troubling law. Interesting that her first inclination was to look to the dole before deciding to take on more work.
7
How does John Roberts sleep at night? And of course the eternal question: why doesn't he want poor people to have health care?
3
John Roberts had nothing to do with the drafting of the ACA.
5
John Roberts can sleep at night because he lives in a spacious, solid and sound-proof home in a quiet neighborhood, and why should he care whether poor people get health care? Obviously that's their problem, not his!
5
Better question: How does Kathleen Sebelius sleep at night? It was her office that issued the faulty legal opinion that threatened the Republican Governors and caused them to sue the Fed in the first place.
Absent that stupidity, I'm comfortable every state would have expanded Medicaid by now.
WR
Absent that stupidity, I'm comfortable every state would have expanded Medicaid by now.
WR
2
I know couples who deferred getting married until well AFTER they'd had their two kids. Why? Two jobs with no health insurance. It was the only way they could afford to have children, was to have them "on the state" (Medicaid)
8
What more evidence do we need that national health insurance is necessary if we want to both provide coverage and contain costs?
12
Politics is the art of the possible. There was not even enough support in the democratic party for a public option! Instead of wasting breath on "single payer;" how about the Democrats work on fixing this rube goldberg contraption of a law that will not keep the promises they made to the American people?
2
A little more. I'm not ready to absorb (and I'm bet you're not either) a 17.5% VAT on everything we buy or sell to fund "national" healthcare a la the UK.
Talk about bring the economy to a halt.
WR
Talk about bring the economy to a halt.
WR
1
That is a scare tactic. There are many ways to fund universal healthcare. Ours is the most expensive and we spend over 18% of our GDP on healthcare for really substandard results. The next closest spends 12% of GDP and that's the Netherlands. Canada funds it's through taxes and the lottery.
A single payer system would greatly reduce healthcare costs. For example, in Ontario, Canada, doctors in 2010 spent $22,205 each year dealing with the single-payer agency, compared to the $82,975 American doctors spend dealing with private insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid. That is per doctor. Single payer could result in a 75% reduction just in administrative costs. Our system is the most expensive to administer. And additionally, thanks to the GOP, the government doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug costs - like insurance companies do. Crazy, they are required by law to pay whatever the drug companies want to charge.
A single payer system would greatly reduce healthcare costs. For example, in Ontario, Canada, doctors in 2010 spent $22,205 each year dealing with the single-payer agency, compared to the $82,975 American doctors spend dealing with private insurance companies, Medicare and Medicaid. That is per doctor. Single payer could result in a 75% reduction just in administrative costs. Our system is the most expensive to administer. And additionally, thanks to the GOP, the government doesn't allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug costs - like insurance companies do. Crazy, they are required by law to pay whatever the drug companies want to charge.
1
This first year will be telling. Since we are self employed, our income fluctuates from year to year. We received subsidies last year based on 2014's AGI, so i'm hoping when the accountant finishes our taxes that we won't be in for a shock. It looks like if our AGI is $62,920, we will be safe, but if it's $62,921 (JUST ONE DOLLAR MORE), that we will have to repay thousands of dollars!
ps:
ps:
2
The point about the AGI threshold for tax-credit eligibility is crucial. It is essential to emphasize that earning one dollar above the limit eliminates any and all savings to the price of premiums. I pay over 30 PERCENT of my AGI on premiums and covered out-of-pocket expenses. This does not include uncovered travel expenses for essential medical care I need to get out of state. I know others who pay much more than 30 percent of their income on health-care costs.
3
There is so much talk from both sides about helping the middle class. Middle class means you are between poor and rich. Who needs help the most? England has reverted to the Victorian term "the undeserving poor". Are we far behind? Fox News believes that you are not poor if you have a microwave and a TV.
Take away gun rights and abortion the Republicans would lose more elections. There are many people who do not vote their "pocketbook". They vote their "Bible". H.L. Mencken said that people get the government they most deserve. Probably more accurate is another Mencken quote that Americans get the best government that money can buy.
Take away gun rights and abortion the Republicans would lose more elections. There are many people who do not vote their "pocketbook". They vote their "Bible". H.L. Mencken said that people get the government they most deserve. Probably more accurate is another Mencken quote that Americans get the best government that money can buy.
10
In rural Virginia this happens a lot. But to sign up for Obamacare, you are asked for an *estimate* of what you will earn in 2015. Self-employed people rarely know for sure. In order to not fall below the Obamacare line in VA which has not expanded medicaid, a single person has to estimate $11,670 for 2015, a married couple $16,000, a married couple with one child $20,000, etc. When 2015 tax return is filed and they fall below their estimate, there is no penalty; in fact they will get a refund on what they overpaid in premiums.
2
do legislators lack basic math skills or are they simply ethically bankrupt?
10
If people who are working full time fall into the gap, then this article additionally implies that our national minimum wage is just too low. But we already knew that, right?
14
Stories about this Catch-22 affecting Texas residents should have been shared with Rick Perry while he was busy boasting of his state's success under his leadership and throwing darts at President Obama. If Governor Perry makes a run for 2016, he should have to address this problem more deeply than saying he would repeal the ACA.
8
All of the articles published by the Times indicate that the ACA should be replaced by a single payer universal access health care system. The ACA is a recycled version of what the Republicans wanted with no controls to stop the increase in medical costs to the patient. It was a way to get the "wealth" care industry on board but it's hurting those who need coverage the most. If the GOP had bothered to cooperate or at least think of the average American instead of going with their stance of being anti-Obama, we might have wound up with something more workable. The blame belongs with the legislators who listen to their big donors and the lobbyists.
Any hope for tweaks to the ACA went by the wayside because the only thing the GOP wants to do is eliminate it. Since all of us need coverage if the GOP is eliminating the ACA what are they going to replace it with? The old system didn't work. Forcing us to have more skin in the game isn't working either. Patients may need more extensive and better care than what is offered in their area or by their plan. The powers that be ignore that fact. However, those powers do not have to live with what they foist upon us. The result is a system that works for insurance, big pharma, the hospitals, the medical profession, but not the patients, and definitely not those in need of constant ongoing care that requires a trusting long term relationship with the provider.
Any hope for tweaks to the ACA went by the wayside because the only thing the GOP wants to do is eliminate it. Since all of us need coverage if the GOP is eliminating the ACA what are they going to replace it with? The old system didn't work. Forcing us to have more skin in the game isn't working either. Patients may need more extensive and better care than what is offered in their area or by their plan. The powers that be ignore that fact. However, those powers do not have to live with what they foist upon us. The result is a system that works for insurance, big pharma, the hospitals, the medical profession, but not the patients, and definitely not those in need of constant ongoing care that requires a trusting long term relationship with the provider.
17
Note that this author does not explain how this hapened.
Obamacare reduced the number of uninsured covered in the program by increasing the income allowed to qualify for Medicaid by 30%. If you qualify for Medicaid, you are not qualified for Obamacare.
Obamacare required all states to participate in Obamacare or loose their federal contributions to Medicaid. The Supreme Court ruled that leverage unconstitutional! This created the gap referenced here for those states who chose not to implement Obamacare.
Why did Obamacare expand the income threshold for Medicaid? They needed to get 10 million of the 50 million uninsured off of the Obamacare coverage rolls so they could say Obamacare was break even over the decade!
Income qualification for folks like those referenced in this article is estimated. What do you think will happen when their actual income is less, they didn't qualify and they get the bill for the subsidy they were not entitled to receive?
In fiscal 2014 the federal government reported: Obamacare cost over $200 billion. The number still uninsured is between 45 million and 50 million. Half of the 9 million who signed up for Obamacare, already had insurance. Eighty percent of the sign ups have a subsidy.
This is the rest of the story.
Obamacare reduced the number of uninsured covered in the program by increasing the income allowed to qualify for Medicaid by 30%. If you qualify for Medicaid, you are not qualified for Obamacare.
Obamacare required all states to participate in Obamacare or loose their federal contributions to Medicaid. The Supreme Court ruled that leverage unconstitutional! This created the gap referenced here for those states who chose not to implement Obamacare.
Why did Obamacare expand the income threshold for Medicaid? They needed to get 10 million of the 50 million uninsured off of the Obamacare coverage rolls so they could say Obamacare was break even over the decade!
Income qualification for folks like those referenced in this article is estimated. What do you think will happen when their actual income is less, they didn't qualify and they get the bill for the subsidy they were not entitled to receive?
In fiscal 2014 the federal government reported: Obamacare cost over $200 billion. The number still uninsured is between 45 million and 50 million. Half of the 9 million who signed up for Obamacare, already had insurance. Eighty percent of the sign ups have a subsidy.
This is the rest of the story.
19
http://getbetterhealth.com/why-would-any-doctor-accept-medicaid/2015.01.26
"In reality, treating Medicaid patients is charity work. The fact that any physicians accept Medicaid is a testament to their generosity of spirit and missionary mindset. Expanding their pro bono workloads is nothing to cheer about. The Affordable Care Act’s “signature accomplishment” is tragically flawed – because offering health insurance to people that physicians cannot afford to accept is not better than being uninsured.
After all, improved access to nothing… offers nothing. Inviting physicians to work for less than minimum wage so that politicians can crow about millions of uninsured Americans now having access to healthcare, is ridiculous. Medicaid expansion is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The saddest part is that the have-nots just don’t realize it yet."
"In reality, treating Medicaid patients is charity work. The fact that any physicians accept Medicaid is a testament to their generosity of spirit and missionary mindset. Expanding their pro bono workloads is nothing to cheer about. The Affordable Care Act’s “signature accomplishment” is tragically flawed – because offering health insurance to people that physicians cannot afford to accept is not better than being uninsured.
After all, improved access to nothing… offers nothing. Inviting physicians to work for less than minimum wage so that politicians can crow about millions of uninsured Americans now having access to healthcare, is ridiculous. Medicaid expansion is widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. The saddest part is that the have-nots just don’t realize it yet."
6
I believe more like 90% of Obamacare sign ups,got welfare subsidies.I've had a couple people brag about how much Obama's welfare program has benefitted them.No welfare for me.No sign up for me.
1
• There are about 30 million people who are still uninsured, despite the sharp reduction in the number of uninsured due to the ACA.
• Of these, Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% are eligible for subsidized coverage. http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/adults-who-remained-uninsured-a...
• Healthcare economics explains why subsidies are needed if healthcare is not only for wealthy.
• Estimates of the cost of Obamacare have always included he costs of Medicaid. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44008
Obamacare is complex because it expanded coverage while attempting to minimize disruptions of jerry-built prior arrangements of insurance coverage.
This complexity is unfortunately confusing to many people.
• Of these, Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% are eligible for subsidized coverage. http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/adults-who-remained-uninsured-a...
• Healthcare economics explains why subsidies are needed if healthcare is not only for wealthy.
• Estimates of the cost of Obamacare have always included he costs of Medicaid. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44008
Obamacare is complex because it expanded coverage while attempting to minimize disruptions of jerry-built prior arrangements of insurance coverage.
This complexity is unfortunately confusing to many people.
2
This is a very sad situation but fairly typical of what happens when you pass massive new laws that impact everyone and over 17% of GDP without a consensus or any compromise or agreements at all across party lines.
When the Dems lost the Kennedy Seat in January 2010, everything fell apart.
Max Baucus' carefully timed out schedule to pass PPACA in both houses, and then enter a lengthy reconciliation period to smooth out all the bumps never happened. Despite having the White House, Senate, and House, Dems were crippled in their efforts by the fact that they had accepted ZERO amendments from the Republican Members of the Senate Finance Committee (when Olympia Snowe walks out on you, it's a pretty good indication you are being unreasonable) and had lost their filibuster proof majority. Thus they, consciously or unconsciously teed up the battle of the century. It could have all been avoided with a tad less triumphalism, a tad less hubris.
Because those below 100% of FPL in 24 states are now the collateral damage of this flawed and dangerous process.
What lessons should we all take from this? There is always a price for quick, unilateral action that affects lots of people. Bring the other side on board with your proposals, or risk giving it all back. Wait til June..
WR
When the Dems lost the Kennedy Seat in January 2010, everything fell apart.
Max Baucus' carefully timed out schedule to pass PPACA in both houses, and then enter a lengthy reconciliation period to smooth out all the bumps never happened. Despite having the White House, Senate, and House, Dems were crippled in their efforts by the fact that they had accepted ZERO amendments from the Republican Members of the Senate Finance Committee (when Olympia Snowe walks out on you, it's a pretty good indication you are being unreasonable) and had lost their filibuster proof majority. Thus they, consciously or unconsciously teed up the battle of the century. It could have all been avoided with a tad less triumphalism, a tad less hubris.
Because those below 100% of FPL in 24 states are now the collateral damage of this flawed and dangerous process.
What lessons should we all take from this? There is always a price for quick, unilateral action that affects lots of people. Bring the other side on board with your proposals, or risk giving it all back. Wait til June..
WR
13
This is a complete non sequitur. The coverage gap exists because of a Supreme Court decision in 2012, and the choice of (Republican led) state legislatures in 2012-2015. The approach taken to passing the law in 2010 is essentially unrelated to how the coverage gap came to exist.
1
WR, the only problem with your analysis is that the other side wants to do nothing; never has and likely never will. The sad part of all of this is it could have been so easily done and paid for with a simple expansion of Medicare to all ages, expansion of the Fica to all incomes and a small increase (less, compared to the cost of profit bloated inefficient insurance policies) in the upper brackets of the income tax paid for those who have benefited most from the opportunities of this great country.
But oh no, that is socialism in the eyes of the GOP. To the GOP (and many democrats and independents) It is as if the words capitalism and profit are specifically required by the Constitution over and above what it actually says. What it says is that our government was and is created to promote the security, justice and the general welfare of the people it serves. It does not say how or by what means. The old and much of present healthcare insurance is the result an anomaly of WWII price controls that caused it to became a labor/employer contract issue rather than a citizen improvement issue in the first place.
It could have been so easy, if the other side had ever really wanted to be on board, but it doesn't and Texas is living proof it would rather let its poorest suffer than get on board with real proposals. TX is such a god fearing state and Christian in name only. As my Congressional Representative in Congress always says in closing: God and Texas,(in that order.)
But oh no, that is socialism in the eyes of the GOP. To the GOP (and many democrats and independents) It is as if the words capitalism and profit are specifically required by the Constitution over and above what it actually says. What it says is that our government was and is created to promote the security, justice and the general welfare of the people it serves. It does not say how or by what means. The old and much of present healthcare insurance is the result an anomaly of WWII price controls that caused it to became a labor/employer contract issue rather than a citizen improvement issue in the first place.
It could have been so easy, if the other side had ever really wanted to be on board, but it doesn't and Texas is living proof it would rather let its poorest suffer than get on board with real proposals. TX is such a god fearing state and Christian in name only. As my Congressional Representative in Congress always says in closing: God and Texas,(in that order.)
2
Disagree. Both sides had LOTS of ideas about how to improve health insurance coverage during the debates of 2009/10. Not all of them were massive new tax/spend redistribute wealth-type give away programs, but those ruled the day because the Dems were in charge. Anything that did not support that vision was not even allowed a vote in the SFC.
Now if your definition of "doing something" means massive new taxes, 42,500 pages of new regulatory material, $2.2T in new spending over 10 years, all to get maybe 25% of the uninsured covered, while at the same time disrupting EXISTING insurance markets coast to coast, then yes, the Right didn't really want to "do" anything.
WR
Now if your definition of "doing something" means massive new taxes, 42,500 pages of new regulatory material, $2.2T in new spending over 10 years, all to get maybe 25% of the uninsured covered, while at the same time disrupting EXISTING insurance markets coast to coast, then yes, the Right didn't really want to "do" anything.
WR
2
Surely there are typos in this article. I pay 760 a month for a family of four for a basic medical plan. Our household income is nowhere near (not even in the same zip code) 912,000 a year. My insurance has gone up on average 20% a year the past two years. How does a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the poor help win elections?
16
It definitely helps win elections - look at the election of 2014!
3
$760 a month for a family plan in your area is a bargain!
1
So the poor should go without health care? How about single payer for all -- just like every industrialized nation on earth (except USA).
Federal poverty level for single a person is under $12,000 year? Are you kidding? Works out to less than $34/day. So I make $35 a day. Everything is A OK. Ridiculous.
38
The state pays nothing or very little to have the Medicaid feature .. these floks work night and day to get by. these legislators know these .. yet they burden thm ven further. Keeping them away from their famiies.. children at risk in poverty zones or other adverse consequences. Are these Leaders the devil? to deny 4 million undesreving hard working folks of potential life saving health care. For the party line.. There are a myriad of words that are boiling in the back of my brain at this kind of behavior.. None nice .. Really how do they sleep at night. I would be haunted.
28
Not true. Several lower income southern states have estimated their "share" of the expansion over the next 10 years in the $Billions. Don't believe the hype, the expansion is not "free".
WR
WR
12
Wellread, you are sort of right: have you seen the money numbers for covering those who just turn up at the local ERs? They so far exceed the cost of this extension in insurance that most states, without an Obama ax to grind, decided that it was better than the alternative, i.e. cheaper.
In fact, the deaths, the bankruptcies and the human misery created by the LACK of health insurance (not to mention the economic cost to everyone else) is the motive that lies behind the drive to get coverage for everyone. Forget that cost and you are absolutely right: no one who doesn't make "enough" should have coverage.
In fact, the deaths, the bankruptcies and the human misery created by the LACK of health insurance (not to mention the economic cost to everyone else) is the motive that lies behind the drive to get coverage for everyone. Forget that cost and you are absolutely right: no one who doesn't make "enough" should have coverage.
4
The cost of being uninsured is in the billions and we all pay the tab!
1
This is why states can't be trusted with federal programs. Almost all of the uncovered working poor are in the south, and they are largely minorities. This explains why the southern states refused to expand Medicaid. "States rights" is just fancy talk for the right to discriminate.
71
Then why did Obamacare rely on states to administer the program, to set up state insurance markets, to expand state medicaid, etc? If you want a federal program, make it a federal program, and don't mandate that states have to do all of the dirty work so you can mask the true cost of the federal program.
5
So, how many people are so discouraged that they don't seek work because that's the only way they can qualify for Medicaid? Having such a strict Medicaid requirement as Texas has, has got to be counter-productive.
23
Being counterproductive all too often seems to be the raison d'être for Texas.
4
Yes. I know someone in that position. She and her son have Medicaid. She is a widow. The possibility that she could get a full time job that paid benefits like health care is remote. Even earning a little money, which she could do, would put her over the threshold and cause her to lose her health care for herself and her son.
2
It's almost impossible to obtain an abortion in Texas now if you decide you can't afford another child. It's also almost impossible to obtain healthcare for those children you knew you couldn't afford once born. This isn't an oversight, it's inhuman.
89
Texas politicians are inhuman monsters,but aborting a child because it will cost too much to raise is an act of compassion? Am I the only one troubled that this Swiftian comment has 17 likes.
1
You don't understand. If you cannot afford to raise a child, you might opt for abortion.
Up to 61 likes now. Nothing about choosing not to have sex? Or are we assuming involuntary pregnancy?
WR
WR
1
Only in America!
21
Have a family member that is quite capable of earning at least $50,000 a year but has chosen not to do that kind of work. Instead works part time at a store and earns $200 a week. Lucky man just got covered by YOU for everything medical, dental, and vision FREE except if he goes in the hospital it will cost him $60.00. Are we still feeling guilty about supplying everything to everyone. Almost 70 and still working.
24
jacrane, you have just bought into the myth of the non-working, lazy slug who is "impoverishing you." What's your reaction to the super rich who is unwilling to support the nation that made their wealth possible through infrastructure, reliable laws and reliable workers etc.? Guess you don't count how they are robbing the middle class by avoiding the imposition of taxes. Meanwhile, less than 300 of your fellow Americans own over 90% of its wealth. Now figure it again: who's "stealing" from the nation?
7
So earning $50,000 a year is a choice!?
1
There has to be more to what you're asserting. No one just "chooses" $10K a year over $50K.
2
I'm one of those erratic-income people - since being laid off, I've been able to find nothing but freelance. (Walmart, etc. don't want you if you're between 40 and 65 and have a college degree and a white-collar professional history. When you're old enough for Medicare they'll reconsider, maybe.) I have been screaming about this for ages. I'll be paying the penalty this year - assuming I made enough to pay any taxes at all; I haven't figured out yet if I'm below the poverty level.
In January I made $560. That is $560 more than in January 2014, for which my income was $0. Freelancers are always the last to get paid. I am single. With no children and not disabled, I qualify for exactly $0 in government aid.
Fortunately, I have a little savings. I may make it to spring.
When Obamacare was being debated back in 2010, I foresaw this situation, as well as everything documented in the NYT's 'Paying Till It Hurts'. But everyone who expressed even the slightest doubt about Obamacare was a racist who wanted to kill poor little Hispanic babies etc etc.
In January I made $560. That is $560 more than in January 2014, for which my income was $0. Freelancers are always the last to get paid. I am single. With no children and not disabled, I qualify for exactly $0 in government aid.
Fortunately, I have a little savings. I may make it to spring.
When Obamacare was being debated back in 2010, I foresaw this situation, as well as everything documented in the NYT's 'Paying Till It Hurts'. But everyone who expressed even the slightest doubt about Obamacare was a racist who wanted to kill poor little Hispanic babies etc etc.
22
Given your situation, ACW, the alternative to Obamacare would have been nothing. That wouldn't have helped you either. Given the choice of covering lots of new people or no one, for most members of Congress the ACA was the last law left standing. You too have swallowed the anti-poor people's logic of the Republicans. FYI most poor people in this still mostly white country, are actually white -- not Hispanic or Black. It is cheaper to cover the cost of health care through a national plan than through state and local payments to hospital ERs and other last minute high cost medical care. These high costs to local and state governments also drove this bill to passage. Most of the objections were from the insurance companies and from those who still believe that individuals aren't also part of a community.
1
The problem was that all opposition to Obamacare was put into the anti-health insurance for all camp. The 'Public Option' got a little play but many of us who knew leaving the for profit insurance companies alive would be a disaster. Just a less worse disaster than the Republican concept of Health Care Payment not bein g a right.
1
You won't be paying a penalty this year for not having insurance because you're exempt from the mandate if insurance costs more than 8% of your income. If you were in a state that expanded Medicaid as was required by Obamacare (until the Supreme Court ruled it was optional for states) then you'd be able to get Medicaid now.
1
And we thought this was a Florida problem. Republicans will do anything in their power to stick it to the president, and if that includes sticking it to working people, so be it. In Florida, we reelected the worst governor in our history, and many who voted for him are those being most harmed by his policies. Good grief!
55
These Medicaid games have to stop. Working in hospitals, I had middle class parents quit jobs so they would qualify for Medicaid. Caught in the middle, they were neither rich enough nor poor enough to get their ill children critical services. Total insanity.
87
As if Medicaid is a good option?
http://getbetterhealth.com/why-would-any-doctor-accept-medicaid/2015.01.26
http://getbetterhealth.com/why-would-any-doctor-accept-medicaid/2015.01.26
2
I don't understand why Texans voted for Republicans after the Democrats running for the impoverished state's top offices promised to close the health care coverage gap if elected. They voted overwhelmingly for Republicans who also said they would fight tooth and nail against raising the minimum wage. This is in a state with the most uninsured and most people making minimum wages. If you're a Texan under 65 (which qualifies you for Medicare and Social Security, which the Texas governor can't mess with) and have kids, leave that Third World state. Today.
52
Why? Because the middle class (read Republicans) have been hit with huge health insurance cost increases these past three years to finance Obama's health insurance fiasco. That's why.
10
The answer to your question must be that freeloaders don't vote and hard workers do.
7
That's what Texas (and my state Kansas) is hoping they will do: move to another state. One way to get rid of the riffraff.
"Fifty-four percent of people in the coverage gap already work full or part time . . . often in low-wage retail or restaurant jobs. Half are Hispanic or black, and 86 percent live in the South."
Back in 2013, our Georgia insurance commissioner said "his department would do “everything in our power to be an obstructionist” to Obamacare" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fm-2J4F4v4)."
The Southern states, the Republican led states. One might ponder if the end game is for some folks to want other folks to leave their states. One way to do that is to use the technologies of control. Starve, sick, and tax them out (the just above poverty and well below wealthy pay more simply because they haven't the type of tax breaks available to the wealthier).
Thanks for reading my comment.
Back in 2013, our Georgia insurance commissioner said "his department would do “everything in our power to be an obstructionist” to Obamacare" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fm-2J4F4v4)."
The Southern states, the Republican led states. One might ponder if the end game is for some folks to want other folks to leave their states. One way to do that is to use the technologies of control. Starve, sick, and tax them out (the just above poverty and well below wealthy pay more simply because they haven't the type of tax breaks available to the wealthier).
Thanks for reading my comment.
42
In a country that spends so much on the national defense, it is embarrassing and tragic that we do not do more for health care. Why does it matter if the threat is men or microbes, that we defend against. We protect people from fires why not treat high temperatures. No one should have to go broke because they broke their leg. We need a single payer health care for everyone. Let us defend our country from infections as well as invasions.
139
I agree. Bring on the 17% VAT on every single thing we buy or sell so we can get this argument over with. That way everybody gets hurt, not just the guy with the broken leg.
WR
WR
If you add up what people spend on health care and education in the USA, that 17% VAT is a bargain. I have compared my tax rate with the taxes my family in Europe pays -- and it's the same -- only I don't get anything for my taxes, and my relatives ask, "What are you paying for?" Americans gladly pay for wars -- but for healthcare or education.
Unfortunately, our presidents prefers to not defend our country from invasion on the southern border to spreading infections throughout the land by busing unvaccinated children all over the country to your local school district.
Healthcare will not much matter when you dont defend your country and you will see that come to light in the next few decades without a shot fired. We are being overrun on purpose...you will hope you have food in a few decades after the progressives are through with the country.
Healthcare will not much matter when you dont defend your country and you will see that come to light in the next few decades without a shot fired. We are being overrun on purpose...you will hope you have food in a few decades after the progressives are through with the country.
This is worse than sad. It's cruel. The anti-ACA states are punishing the weakest of the weak. These people are not bums or freeloaders. They work and work hard. What's is most infuriating is that if a low income person has a couple of kids, the threshold for receiving subsidies goes way up. Who then suffers the most? The children.
This problem is exactly why I could never support the Republican party. I care too much about people. Denying innocent children healthcare because of blind allegiance to some false utopian market ideology goes way beyond stupid, beyond insensitivity. It's heartless cruelty.
This problem is exactly why I could never support the Republican party. I care too much about people. Denying innocent children healthcare because of blind allegiance to some false utopian market ideology goes way beyond stupid, beyond insensitivity. It's heartless cruelty.
101
Indeed. It's as if the GOP is market-testing 'Are there no workhouses?' as their 2016 campaign slogan.
3
By this logic, if I don't buy lunch for you today, I'm "punishing" you and "denying" you food?
jkw,
What if I don't have enough money to buy lunch?
Your comment typifies why I stated that I could never support the Republican Party. "I care too much about people." Looks like you are a strong supporter of the GOP.
What if I don't have enough money to buy lunch?
Your comment typifies why I stated that I could never support the Republican Party. "I care too much about people." Looks like you are a strong supporter of the GOP.
1
If you work harder and more hours maybe you will be able to raise your income to match those of your Republican government. Then you will not need Obamacare and you can criticize people who do.
8
Adding work (taking second jobs or addiing hours) in order to obtain subsized health insurance seems like a "win-win" situation. Thank you for profiling some resourceful low income working people.
5
This is not a win-win. Why should I have to work only 40 hours of my week to obtain basic health care, while someone less fortunate that me should have to work 50 hours, 60 hours or more?
I am also troubled by the phrase "some resourceful low income people". This implies to me that the majority are not resourceful. In reality low income people are at least equally if not more resourceful that those who make double their salary. How else could they live on such a tight budget?
I am also troubled by the phrase "some resourceful low income people". This implies to me that the majority are not resourceful. In reality low income people are at least equally if not more resourceful that those who make double their salary. How else could they live on such a tight budget?
69
Not to mention that, given the unemployment picture, if someone is working more than 40 hours then that probably means someone else can't get 40 hours as a result.
3
And who takes care of their children as they work more hours and have less time at home? Next you'll be railing about the scourge of absent parents who work all the time and let others raise their children or worse, leave them at home alone because they can't afford to pay the extra child care costs.
You're missing the point, big time.
You're missing the point, big time.
8
The current approach to legislation seems to be to adopt broad laws with enormous associated costs, with little attention paid to consequences arising out of details as laws are put into place. An example is this law and Sarbanes Oxley, where numerous politically popular provisions have been delayed or abandoned because they did not adequately reflect reality. In the case of the Affordable Health Care Act, with the exception of providing some coverage through medicaid expansion in approximately half the states and coverage through Health Exchanges to approximately 6.5 million persons, 85% of whom receive taxpayer financed subsidies, everything else is a fiasco. Yesterday there was an article in the Times about the extremely surprising and difficult tax consequences that many will face as a result of this law. In the private insurance market, many people have had to take inferior coverage to what they previously had, often at increasingly greater cost.
The Administration always cites this law when it wants to show positive accomplishments but seems to gloss over (with little consequence) the incredible amount of problems and unintended consequences it created. When will politicians be held accountable for creating as many, or more problems, in adopting faulty legislation.
The Administration always cites this law when it wants to show positive accomplishments but seems to gloss over (with little consequence) the incredible amount of problems and unintended consequences it created. When will politicians be held accountable for creating as many, or more problems, in adopting faulty legislation.
13
I don't understand how private insurance could possibly be better than a step in the right direction with the Affordable Care Act. Don't your deductibles and premiums rise every year with unpredictable results as well? Don't the rest of us subsidize the criminal big pharma and hospitals that are banding together to squeeze out your general practitioner? This is from the people who can't afford insurance as it is and welcome ANY change in the current situation!
2
What people do not understand is that, except for Medicaid and Medicare, this whole program is being run by private insurance. There is no government regulation of what they charge and with a few very odd exceptions, they can completely control the benefits they offer, the deductibles, co-pays and covered and uncovered drugs. All individual consumers got pushed into a marketplace where they are mandated to get insurance--the terms of which are dictated by private companies. The people who get insurance through jobs are not in this system, only those individuals who fall into two categories--those who had previously purchased insurance privately which worked well for them and those who either elected to self insure or could not afford private insurance 85% of whom are now being provided insurance at taxpayer expense. When some of these subsidies disappear, as inevitably they will as the government runs out of places to find money, this whole system will collapse. Meanwhile insurers were able to force people to accept limited choices (including eliminating coverages they found unprofitable) at prices they chose (which were subsidized by taxes).
1
And this is in the United States of America - the greatest democracy the world has ever known. God bless us....except that I think as He looks down from above he is going in the other direction.
7
The obvious question: why is there a "gap" at all?
Why doesn't the ACA simply provide a subsidy for low income earners/people, regardless of whether they meet a "minimum" income?
Why doesn't the ACA simply provide a subsidy for low income earners/people, regardless of whether they meet a "minimum" income?
42
Just wait for the supreme court. Of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy.
26
Because the law was so incredibly badly designed.
4
The ACA as written did not have a gap. The gap exists (as mentioned in the article) as a result of a Supreme Court decision that allowed each state to create a gap for its residents by declining to expand Medicaid as specified by the ACA.
1
This is infuriating and a terrible thing to do to your fellow human being. It should make all moral people angry, regardless of political party because it is being done by people whose healthcare is paid for by taxpayers.
These folks work hard in jobs that don't have secure health benefits. A good number of them fall deep into medical debt, or even go bankrupt in order to qualify for Medicaid in dire circumstances. They have no preventive care and the first time they learn of serious disease is in the ER. By this time, they are sometimes too far progressed to recover and continue providing for their dependents.
Shame on us! This deliberate Republican gap is the real death panel from the "party that defends life."
These folks work hard in jobs that don't have secure health benefits. A good number of them fall deep into medical debt, or even go bankrupt in order to qualify for Medicaid in dire circumstances. They have no preventive care and the first time they learn of serious disease is in the ER. By this time, they are sometimes too far progressed to recover and continue providing for their dependents.
Shame on us! This deliberate Republican gap is the real death panel from the "party that defends life."
189
"Deliberate Republican Gap?" Really?
Forget that it was the current President's Department of Health and Human Services that issued the legal opinion that threatened 25 state governors with an authority the Fed never had? Forget that it was stupidity at the highest levels of the current administration that allowed a case to make it to SCOTUS at all. Forget that if Kathleen Sebelius hadn't claimed a legal authority no federal agency has EVER had to show Governors she was in charge, there would have been no legal challenge, and another 25 million Americans would have health insurance for free right now.
Too easy to blame SCOTUS or Republicans. Hate to break it to you, but they were expanding Medicaid as a block until HHS threatened them with something stupid. I couldn't believe she didn't get fired over it.
WR
Forget that it was the current President's Department of Health and Human Services that issued the legal opinion that threatened 25 state governors with an authority the Fed never had? Forget that it was stupidity at the highest levels of the current administration that allowed a case to make it to SCOTUS at all. Forget that if Kathleen Sebelius hadn't claimed a legal authority no federal agency has EVER had to show Governors she was in charge, there would have been no legal challenge, and another 25 million Americans would have health insurance for free right now.
Too easy to blame SCOTUS or Republicans. Hate to break it to you, but they were expanding Medicaid as a block until HHS threatened them with something stupid. I couldn't believe she didn't get fired over it.
WR
Anon, I thought that the ACA was a Democratic law - created for and passed by only Democrats.....
2
I totally agree. Republicans seem to only care about "life" in utero, but once it's born, that same life can just suck up the misery of poverty.
2
Just 'having' insurance is not enough. Not mentioned in the artcle are the deductibles and co-insurance rates that come with these lousy plans. Millions of working poor Americans have insurance, but still cant afford to see a doctor or be treated in an ER. Until that is fixed, we still have a healthcare crisis in this country.
106
Enjoy your Obamacare!
Some of us saw all this coming. I have posted the words 'Health insurance is not health care' over and over and over.
This article, and the NYT's 'Paying Till It Hurts' series, document amply: The ACA is a lousy law. It was pushed through on emotional and political grounds, by equating support for Obamacare with support for Obama, and equating any criticism of Obama with racism. Its purpose was to give Obama an 'accomplishment' heading into 2012, to one-up Hillary (who failed to reform health care) and to give Obama a place in the history books on grounds other than his skin. And someone who finally spoke the truth - that Obamacare got support because the American people are stupid -was lambasted for it.
What we need is single-payer. We will never get single-payer now, though, because rather than junking this lemon they will tinker with it endlessly.
I have voted for a Republican exactly twice, both times in local elections. (One was running as an independent. The other's a moderate.) But I hope the Republicans keep trying, like the ant in the song who pushed at the rubber tree plant.
Some of us saw all this coming. I have posted the words 'Health insurance is not health care' over and over and over.
This article, and the NYT's 'Paying Till It Hurts' series, document amply: The ACA is a lousy law. It was pushed through on emotional and political grounds, by equating support for Obamacare with support for Obama, and equating any criticism of Obama with racism. Its purpose was to give Obama an 'accomplishment' heading into 2012, to one-up Hillary (who failed to reform health care) and to give Obama a place in the history books on grounds other than his skin. And someone who finally spoke the truth - that Obamacare got support because the American people are stupid -was lambasted for it.
What we need is single-payer. We will never get single-payer now, though, because rather than junking this lemon they will tinker with it endlessly.
I have voted for a Republican exactly twice, both times in local elections. (One was running as an independent. The other's a moderate.) But I hope the Republicans keep trying, like the ant in the song who pushed at the rubber tree plant.
18
And the Republican health care alternative plan is what, exactly?
Just don't be poor?
Yes, of course, single payer would be better and cheaper. But, at no time in the last at least half century has the combination of a House majority and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate which would both support single payer existed.
The ACA may be unlovely in many ways. But many thousands have coverage that didn't. Tens of thousands may not have to die every year for lack of coverage. The plan can be improved -- adding a public option would increase competition and access, for example -- but just getting rid of it would be disastrous.
Incremental progress is still progress.
Oh, and anyone who was honestly paying attention would recognise that if the GOP had put forth a plan and Obama had openly endorsed it, every single Republican -- sadly, probably including Olympia Snowe -- would have immediately set themselves against it.
Just don't be poor?
Yes, of course, single payer would be better and cheaper. But, at no time in the last at least half century has the combination of a House majority and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate which would both support single payer existed.
The ACA may be unlovely in many ways. But many thousands have coverage that didn't. Tens of thousands may not have to die every year for lack of coverage. The plan can be improved -- adding a public option would increase competition and access, for example -- but just getting rid of it would be disastrous.
Incremental progress is still progress.
Oh, and anyone who was honestly paying attention would recognise that if the GOP had put forth a plan and Obama had openly endorsed it, every single Republican -- sadly, probably including Olympia Snowe -- would have immediately set themselves against it.
3
What exactly do you hope the Republicans keep trying?
With Roberts, for one time in his life, actually voting to sustain the ACA, this shows that state-wide elections have consequences. It would have been interesting to ask the same people affected, the new donut hole population, if they voted in their state's 2014 election.
28
I'm reading this as I wait for breakfast in tiny Costa Rica that provides universal health care for all of its citizens. Also, it is excellent health care at about one half of the price we pay. I hear few complaints from my in laws about their system, especially after I describe our ridiculous system and the politics surrounding it. They don't understand why there is any question that everone should have equal access to life saving health care. Neither do I.
133
Google it!
"How much money/salary do doctors make in Costa Rica?"
"The salary for a doctor in Costa Rica ranges from $1367-$2632 in US Dollars. If you have a specialty, initially you would be at the middle of the range. The cost of living in Costa Rica is considerably lower than in the US."
I think I see how they do it in Costa Rica.
"How much money/salary do doctors make in Costa Rica?"
"The salary for a doctor in Costa Rica ranges from $1367-$2632 in US Dollars. If you have a specialty, initially you would be at the middle of the range. The cost of living in Costa Rica is considerably lower than in the US."
I think I see how they do it in Costa Rica.
5
Primary doctors in the US make more than doctors anywhere in world. That's part of the unintended consequences of a free market. When the commodity is health and health is invaluable, the market will extract as much as the consumer will bear. Be it for doctor's services or bandaids. The medical establishment keeps the number of doctors low to keep their earnings high. That's capitalism for you.
2
I live in a country that is much more expensive than much of the US. Our health care is both cheaper and better -- far better by every study on health care in the industrialised world of the the last twenty years or so.
So how do they do it?
So how do they do it?
2
I live in Texas and was unemployed for a large part of 2013 and a good part of 2014. The article misses the key issue though: how do you estimate your future income in an honest and fair way about the next year? For the months of November through March I made nothing even though I felt reasonably sure I would be transitioning to a new (and more stable) career by the end of 2014. To be safe, in Dec 2014 I estimated my 2014 income as 25,000, but in between Jan and March I had zero income and was in danger of losing my policy. I called the feds several time to ask for information and advice. Most refused to give advice other than to report my zero income truthfully -- to cancel my subsidized policy, and apply for Medicaid. Luckily, Texas required insurers to give people 3 months to pay premiums before their policy was canceled. I was able to borrow the money to pay one month. By late Spring I was making money again, and by fall I was receiving a regular salary (after having enrolled in classes I paid for fully on my own). But I did not meet that minimum threshold for income to qualify for subsidies until late Sept.
I managed ok, but I'm sure there's a lot of people in Texas who also estimated their incomes as being over the threshold and for one reason or another weren't able to make that income threshold and now have to pay back the feds for the subsidies based on their optimistic assumptions. I blame the state of Texas for causing this mess.
I managed ok, but I'm sure there's a lot of people in Texas who also estimated their incomes as being over the threshold and for one reason or another weren't able to make that income threshold and now have to pay back the feds for the subsidies based on their optimistic assumptions. I blame the state of Texas for causing this mess.
66
This is a federal law, not a state law. The ACA is a poorly designed, poorly implemented health care system. Instead of trying to do a little at a time, perhaps even doing studies in different states to see what would work, they gave everything to the insurance companies and worked out this gargantuan mess. Before anyone says that the republicans had no idea, stop. There were lots of ideas out there, but the dems wanted a big, big program. (I'm not republican.) Now, instead of helping the few that were uninsured we hurt everyone that was insured, and a lot of those people were happy with their plans. Health insurance in general is a bad way to take care of it, but nothing in this country is ever changed, no matter how archaic or bad it is. We just make it worse.
3
Texas is pure evil when it comes to much of anything except making people dance. That we do better than anyone but intelligent public policy? NOt Here. One thing the two people who were profiled live in Austin, where there is little unemployment. Second jobs are easier to find here than anywhere else in the country. Austin's economy has little to do with "Perry's Texas Miracle' though because our economy is all about the UT-Tech nexus with State government jobs as icing. The options these folks have are not possible in most of this state.
1