HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The devil, is as always, ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:00 PM

 

The devil, is as always, in the details.

Well, well, well. As the ACA slowly grinds to life, it is turning out that more and more major problems are being revealed. Never mind that the ACA gives the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, with regulations that are few and weak.

Now we're seeing all sorts of nasty little secrets come oozing out. Last week was the revelation that smokers could be paying thousands of dollars more in premiums. This week, we find out that there will be no federal financial assistance for those who can't afford family coverage offered by employers.

"The Obama administration adopted a strict definition of affordable health insurance on Wednesday that will deny federal financial assistance to millions of Americans with modest incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by employers.

In deciding whether an employer’s health plan is affordable, the Internal Revenue Service said it would look at the cost of coverage only for an individual employee, not for a family. Family coverage might be prohibitively expensive, but federal subsidies would not be available to help buy insurance for children in the family.

The policy decision came in a final regulation interpreting ambiguous language in the 2010 health care law. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/irs-to-base-insurance-affordability-on-single-coverage.html?ref=us&_r=0

Wonderful, so while a parent can get coverage for themselves, their kids have to go without? Just how fucked up is that?

Makes you wonder what else is going to come crawling out of the woodwork in the ensuing weeks and months.

65 replies, 3141 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply The devil, is as always, in the details. (Original post)
MadHound Jan 2013 OP
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #1
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #2
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #3
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #5
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #11
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #17
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #47
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #28
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #48
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #50
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #51
hfojvt Jan 2013 #24
veganlush Jan 2013 #27
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #6
leftstreet Jan 2013 #4
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #9
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #10
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #14
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #19
Skittles Jan 2013 #35
MadHound Jan 2013 #42
leftstreet Jan 2013 #13
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #15
Skittles Jan 2013 #36
hfojvt Jan 2013 #25
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #30
MadHound Jan 2013 #39
leftstreet Jan 2013 #7
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #16
Le Taz Hot Jan 2013 #32
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #58
Le Taz Hot Feb 2013 #60
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 #64
forestpath Jan 2013 #8
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #12
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #18
Luminous Animal Jan 2013 #20
Angry Dragon Jan 2013 #21
liberal_at_heart Jan 2013 #23
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #22
dreamnightwind Jan 2013 #29
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #31
JHB Jan 2013 #38
Summer Hathaway Jan 2013 #26
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #34
MadHound Jan 2013 #40
Summer Hathaway Jan 2013 #43
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #52
MadHound Jan 2013 #53
Summer Hathaway Jan 2013 #54
MadHound Jan 2013 #55
Summer Hathaway Jan 2013 #56
Summer Hathaway Feb 2013 #57
dionysus Feb 2013 #62
awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #33
Skittles Jan 2013 #37
MadHound Jan 2013 #41
Skittles Jan 2013 #45
Zorra Jan 2013 #44
Recursion Jan 2013 #46
Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #49
Autumn Feb 2013 #59
woo me with science Feb 2013 #61
woo me with science Feb 2013 #63
ProSense Feb 2013 #65

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:17 PM

1. Just a question ...

have you ever, in the 4 years of President Obama's presidency, posted a single positive thing about President Obama? (And "I like the guy ... I voted for the guy; but ..." doesn't count.)

Just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:26 PM

2. It's a big wide board. I suggest you focus on your own positive posts and leave off the personal

attacks.

How about addressing the topic at hand. What do you think about a worker's kid's unable to get coverage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:32 PM

3. I have a couple suggestions for you ...

since its a big wide board ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:34 PM

5. What do you think about a worker's kid's unable to get coverage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:42 PM

11. It's terrible for that subset of the population ...

what do you think about the 30,000,000+ that now have access to insurance thanks to the AHCA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:58 PM

17. My focus is on the least amongst us.

I fought my ass off against Clinton's welfare reform. And, as predicted, the poorest just got poorer. IT KILLS ME EACH AND EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY HOW WE THREW SO MANY PEOPLE INTO HUNGER AND POVERTY. Welfare reform was a Republican plan and increased poverty.

The AHCA is a republican plan and WILL increase health care insecurity for those who need it most.

As for your 30,000,000+ number? I saw similar imaginary stats during the welfare reform debate. I did not believe Clinton's numbers and I don't believe Obama's numbers. Why? Because BOTH ARE BASED ON A REPUBLICAN PLAN.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:41 PM

47. The least among us won't be affected.

ETA: The least among us will be qualified for Medicaid expansion. And if you live in a state without an enlightened governor willing to expand medicaid and you would otherwise qualify for the expanded Medicaid, you will not be subject to the fines if you don't get coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:54 AM

28. That's a bogus figure

 

The reality is that "access" to coverage is always going to be any number you care to name.

Ultimately, all the spin in the world doesn't change the reality of what the ACA is. At best it will convince some for a time, but in the end reality always wins out. And the reality here is that this is and always has been one of the most diabolical pieces of legislation rammed down our throats in a half century of decline.

Under the ACA the American people, every single person in this country, will be forced by LAW to purchase insurance from these companies or they will suffer whatever legal repurcussions necessary to force compliance.

It doesn't matter if people want it or not, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how high to co-pay goes, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how expensive it gets, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how poor the service becomes, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how little is actually covered, they have to buy it
There are no real restrictions on price increases, they can and will do whatever they like
There are no real guarantees of service any more than there are today
There are no guarantees that the essentially non-existance penalties today will not be prison tomorrow
There is no guarantee that the insurance you have "access" to will be affordable
There are no guarantess of anything at all, except one very important thing...

The insurance companies are now guaranteed your business at any price they choose to name.

Nothing like this has ever been law in our nation's history. It makes Citizen's United look positively progressive.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JaneyVee (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:00 PM

50. Today, perhaps. And the Patriot act will never be used for anything but catching terrorists.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:24 PM

51. Really, equating the Patriot Act with a bill that will save lives? George Bush probably thanks you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:14 AM

24. aren't kids going to be able to get SCHIP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:50 AM

27. it doesnt say they cant get coverage

It says that the taxpayers arent going to pay for all of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:35 PM

6. Literally, you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:32 PM

4. +1

Attacking the messenger is so unattractive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:40 PM

9. How is asking whether someone has ever posted anything positive

about President Obama an attack on that person. My ... thin-skins abound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:42 PM

10. Why did you ask the question instead of addressing the point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:47 PM

14. Because I wanted ...

hoped that the poster could convince me that he/she is something other than a perpetual President Obama critic.

And, BTW, have YOU ever, in the 4 years of President Obama's presidency, posted a single positive thing about President Obama? (And "I like the guy ... I voted for the guy; but ..." doesn't count.)

Just wondering. Cuz you're kind of suspect, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:07 AM

19. Suspect? Oooo...

I stick to policy which hasn't changed from Carter through Obama. My focus is poverty and peace. Through my voting life time, poverty has increased and war is perpetual and because of Bush and Obama, I've added surveillance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:02 AM

35. see, you're SUSPICIOUS, LA

YOU'RE ASKING INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:50 AM

42. "I have in my hand a list of 205 names of those who are suspect. . ."

 

Democratic McCarthyism, just as unappealing as the old fashioned kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:44 PM

13. What's it got to do with the article?

If you want to know whether or not the member has 'ever posted anything positive about President Obama' use the search function and find out - you're not entitled to a response.

Enough with the board-nannying

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:49 PM

15. Thanks for the guidance ...

Thanks for determining what I am entitled to ...

Can I come out of the corner now, board-nanny?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:22 AM

36. CORRECT

and Manny has INDEED said positive things about President Obama, WHEN DESERVED!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:23 AM

25. I have

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021566043

and a negative about my Republican Congresswoman
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1052268

and a defense of Obama against M$M errors
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021295174

and a negative about Republican tax plans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021222445

and about Mitt Romney
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1167192

and a negative about Missouri's Republican candidate for Governor
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1061299

In case anyone is keeping score.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:59 AM

30. Address the issue,

not the messenger. If the poster bothers you so much, put him/her on ignore. Problem solved and you won't be boring the shit out of the rest of us with your incessant bitching about this particular poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:42 AM

39. Do you ever address the issue when somebody criticizes presidential policy?

 

Or do you simply reply with snark and insult?

From what I've observed, it is the latter. This thread makes my point perfectly. In the several posts you've made, you have yet to address the issue that I brought up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:36 PM

7. DURec

That's for-profit healthcare for ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:53 PM

16. And the alternative ...

in the 2010 political environment was ... what???

And lease do not say single-payer or a public option ... everyone there, including Bernie, has indicated that the votes weren't there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:07 AM

32. The alternative is that I don't have to pay

for coverage I'm not going to get with money I don't have. It's the whole mandate thing that is intrinsically the problem. It's a Republican plan designed to divert from single-payer and was confirmed by a Republican Chief Justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:02 PM

58. That's not the alternative ...

that's the current state.

When I was talking about what was the alternative, I was asking what could have gotten through Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:56 PM

60. No, the current state

is I don't have insurance because I don't have money to buy it. Next year, I get to pay a penalty for not having the money to purchase the MANDATED insurance OR I pay for some lousy insurance that I won't be able to use due to high deductibles with money I don't have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #60)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:04 AM

64. Question ...

Are you self-employed? Unemployed? Or, employed by another?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:39 PM

8. They can fix it later.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:43 PM

12. Yes ...

They can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:05 AM

18. Will they??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:08 AM

20. They fixed NAFTA. Hahahahaha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:39 AM

21. Yes they did

and a whole bunch more are coming ..............

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:07 AM

23. well as someone who pays $925 in insurance every month, THEY BETTER FIX IT FAST!

or I will be one of the ones signing up to pay the penalty or tax instead of paying the greedy insurance bastards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:40 AM

22. It's a Heritage Foundation idea. A republican law.

 

Of course it sucks. I don't see how this is a step toward single payer when it is a wholly corporate capitalist's dream.

All I see are people having their hours cut so companies don't have to cover people and things like this in the OP and the obscene smoker's charge that came out last week.

I'm starting to wonder if there wasn't something to all the bellyaching by the right on this besides political gain. It's their law after all, they would know what's in it.

All we had to say was "Medicare for all". The people love Medicare across the political spectrum and it's simple to understand. It would have sold. It just wouldn't sell to our elected sellouts. Which is why they made it as messy and convoluted as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:56 AM

29. +1000

Also, there is absolutely no reason for there to be any link between healthcare and a person's employer. You'd think they could at least have gotten that fixed, most businesses would LOVE to be free from contributing towards their employees' health insurance. - edited to add: and most workers would be thrilled, in this age of job insecurity, for their health insurance to have nothing to do with their employer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:06 AM

31. Agreed.

 

Chaining a person to a job simply to keep the benefits is another way they screw you. Give workers mobility and choices and salaries will increase and real competition can occur. Two more things they absolutely do not want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:35 AM

38. For a few it's deliberate bellyaching; plenty of others are knee jerk...

...with emphasis on the jerk. A Democrat (and especially Obama) pushed for it, so it's "socialism" and therefore equal to a Stalinist police state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:43 AM

26. Oh, my.

So sorry to know that your last OP didn't get as many replies as you want/need - which invariably leads to a new OP, like this one, where you hope to be more appreciated.

Keep up the good work - eventually, someone somewhere is bound to notice you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:18 AM

34. That kind of snark serves no purpose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:44 AM

40. Once again, failure to address the issue. Why is that?

 

Oh, yeah, never mind. Hard to actually defend the indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:35 AM

43. I believe I have addressed the issue

quite pointedly, the issue being your compulsion to post anti-Obama OPs over and over again.

I think we all got your point a very long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:07 PM

52. No, you have addressed what you would like the issue to be while ignoring the problem. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:15 PM

53. No, that's what you wish the issue would be,

 

The issue that I'm addressing in my OP is the fact that millions of kids are going to be uninsured because of the failure to provide credits for the working poor in the ACA.

But hey, I guess it is too difficult for you to address such an issue, so you use snark instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:59 PM

54. Sorry, but

I don't believe for a minute that you are the least bit interested in discussing any issues at all. Your purpose is transparent - post something anti-Obama, then sit back and wait for the replies and recs.

And if one anti-Obama OP doesn't gain any traction, you simply post another on a different topic and hope for better mileage.

We get it - you can't stand Obama. There's really no need to keep repeating yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:42 PM

55. Again, this is your wishful thinking,

 

I have been very clear about the issues I care about, no matter whether the person in the White House has a D or R behind their name. I care deeply about single payer UHC, have cared a great deal since the late seventies. Yes, I find the ACA to be an abomination, even back when it was Romneycare, or HeritageFoundationcare, even back when it was Nixoncare. It simply isn't a good replacement or alternative to single payer UHC.

Thus, now that it is the law of the land, yes, I will be critical of it. As you see, it is turning out to be an even worse deal than we thought.

So, I'm more than willing to discuss and/or debate this issue with you. However, it is also quite obvious that your loyalty to the president is blinding you to his many faults. If that is how you want to go through life, that is your choice. Just don't expect that everybody will make the same choice.

Don't like somebody who is consistently anti-war, pro-civil liberties, all around liberal in general, touch, get used to it.

So either discuss the issue at hand, or admit that you're ducking out on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:01 PM

56. ...

"However, it is also quite obvious that your loyalty to the president is blinding you to his many faults."

I said nothing about loyalty to Obama, nor disloyalty, nor (D) nor (R). That's not the point. The point is that you can't stand the man, and for some reason find it necessary to reiterate that constantly.

I would find it equally tiresome if you posted OPs about Sarah Palin, or Limbaugh, or any other person you don't like - over, and over, and over again.

Funny how you pretend to want to discuss 'issues', when the only ones you post about are those you can tie to Obama in some negative way. I find that incredibly boring, and don't wish to try and 'discuss' anything with someone who keeps harping on the same thing incessantly.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:53 AM

57. Ah, yes, the Devil is indeed in the details

Your OP on Obama not closing Gitmo - fail. No traction.

Followed immediately by your OP on the ineptitude of Obamacare - fail. No traction.

On to the ever-popular OP about drones - up for hours now and, so far, no takers.

I appreciate how you post OPs about these 'issues' that are so close to your heart. Can't help but notice how quickly you abandon said issues when the recs-'n'-reply numbers are not to your liking.

Well, maybe you're just "ducking out" when the "issue at hand" doesn't get the attention you feel you deserve.

I rest my case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:52 PM

62. and there you have it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:28 AM

33. Millions of Americans...

will be forced to buy a product from predatory providers with practically no regulations on said predator. What could possibly go wrong? We wanted public option, so we started debates there instead of at universal health care. We shouldn't be surprised we didn't get what we wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:24 AM

37. and they are acting like this was a "glitch"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:46 AM

41. Makes one wonder how many more "glitches" are going to be revealed in the upcoming months,

 

Makes one a bit scared as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:28 PM

45. any new program, especially of this magnitude, will have glitches

I simply don't find it believable that this was one of them, unless there was a lot of incompetence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:15 PM

44. The ACA is another boondoggle that we must now eliminate by taking

direct action to force the institution of publicly financed universal healthcare.

Politicians who have been compromised by wealthy private interests, and wealthy private interests themselves, will never allow us to institute a fair and humane healthcare system through the political system.

People really need to stop bullshitting themselves about this, it's so embarrassing in its naivete. If we want a reasonable healthcare system, we're going to have to take it and make it for ourselves from outside the system. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:30 PM

46. Smokers are already charged more

Did you expect ACA to reverse that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 01:46 PM

49. Gee, if only someone had warned us about where this would go...

 

Oh wait... er...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:05 PM

59. That's insurance finance reform for you.

When Obama called it that, I knew there was more coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:35 PM

61. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 09:19 AM

63. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 09:11 AM

65. This is not the final rule, and

it likely needs to be clarified.

Fact Sheet on Proposed Affordable Care Act Regulations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022291387

Still, the NY Times article and other reports appear to be making incomplete assumptions

In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, total premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. rule, such costs would be considered affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

Is this a single-income family? If this is based on two incomes, what would prevent either parent from covering both kids (assuming neither parent earns more than $26,000)?

The Medicaid subsidies are up to 400 percent of FPL (about $90,000 for a family of four), and a family of three qualifies for full Medicaid up to $26,344.

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

The assumptions about children are also wrong:

<...>

Who qualifies for CHIP?

Every state operates a CHIP, although most states have unique names for their programs like Child Health Plus (New York), Healthy Families (California), and Hoosier Healthwise (Indiana). In several states, CHIP and Medicaid are combined into one program.

Here are some CHIP basics:

  • Basic eligibility for CHIP: Children up to age 19 in families with incomes up to $45,000 per year (for a family of four) are likely to be eligible for coverage. In many states, children in families with higher incomes can also qualify.

  • Eligibility and pregnancy: Pregnant women may be eligible for CHIP. Coverage for expectant mothers generally includes lab testing and labor and delivery costs, and at least 60 days of care after delivery.

  • Citizenship and immigration status: CHIP covers U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants. States have the option of covering children and pregnant women who are lawfully residing in the United States. Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for CHIP.
http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insurance/low-cost-care/childrens-insurance-program/index.html


http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP.html

Also, what would prevent the other family members (spouse and children) from securing health care on the exchange?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread