AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Goody for you. You may not realize there are areas already experiencing a shortage of doctors, doctors who will not take Medicaid or Medicare and doctors leaving practice. Some leaving may be actual retirement age; however, my next door neighbors two clearly stated they were leaving because of the ACA.

My issue is with a group of non-medical personnel in the form of Infernal (Yes, I meant to spell it that way.) Revenue Service employees determining if my health insurance meets some one size fits all bureaucratic pile of elephant dung! We spent a great deal of time determining what meets our needs. Basically one person's needs as I do not see doctors. When the need occurs, I have negotiated a lower price for cash.

This law was supposed to provide choices in carriers; however, in many states the "better" insurance companies are not participating in exchanges, leaving individuals with very poor available carriers. It is interesting the President and his henchmen feel they can force citizens into insurance; however are unable to convince insurance companies to participate. It would seem the insurance companies have freedoms the citizens do not.

TroubleshooterTim Loc: People's Republic of Oregon

Richard,
Thank you for starting this thread. I appreciate your passion. I have been seeking someone who can truly engage in-depth on this topic. All partisan sources aside. Set down your political talking points, and not use such statements as "my source states..."..If you want to challenge sources, conclusions--> please do. But, please engage in a little bit of research and develop your own conclusions.



I like your passion, and would like to engage these points by stating one of the first rules of logic--> You can't prove a negative. There's an allegation of "lies Republicans have spread" and then negatives (cannot, will not, etc.).


I promise I'm not going to get upset or frustrated. I'm eager to hear it. How does it do these three things? (ever notice they always seem to come in threes?). If you don't have an answer I do. Lets begin to unpack these points, and then there are more points to be made later.

So look at what is does do...
Navigators...Trained and certified, but ACA Navigators are not required to pass a background check. Some state run exchanges require them, but not all. The Republican Obstructionist argument comes from the liberal talking point, let's be objective in our exploration here, please. The ACA grants provided to many states was inadequate, as it was unevenly distributed. Red states were offered considerable less than blue states (based on population).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323463704578495431991530040.html

Medical Records: Those who go thru exchanges are permitting all their medical records to be recorded into a Gov't database managed by those who are excluded from HIPPA. Sure, I understand, that is a pretty bold statement I made. but it is based on PPACA section 1104 which give HHS Secretary free reign to make the rules. And, she did. . .
http://www.anthem.com/provider/noapplication/f1/s0/t0/pw_e196648.pdf?refer=ahpprovider
Having to report medical information to the IRS is, in of it self, a HIPPA violation. But, it will be required.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-09.pdf
*note, this is the current form,

Health and Welfare home visits: Anyone who puts their children into the exchange could be subject to home visits to inspect the health and welfare of these children (no warrants needed). Each state, and many localities, have a Child Protective Services (or named something similar). A healthcare provider is already required, by law, to report suspected events of abuse. Many question the tactics used by many CPS's (but, that is an all different topic). A family shouldn't have to surrender their 4th amendment rights obtaining health care. Then, there's the issue of what is the acceptable standard (Manhattan is very different than Louisiana swamp). Wouldn't you agree this may be better handled locally than one-size-fits-all federal view?
I'd be happy to keep the dialog going on this subject if you are willing to look at some of the targeted outcomes.
MIECHV is authorized under the Social Security Act, Title V, Section 511 (42 USC 711), as amended by Section 2951 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. No. 111-148).
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title05/0511.htm


Massive Cancellation by Gov't mandate and insurers declining to participate in the exchanges:
There are a number of good sources on this one. AP story --> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/29/AP-Many-Will-Have-Insurance-Cancelled-...

There is also massive indirect cancellations caused by PPACA. The impact has already been felt, by the companies offering plans less than what the Gov't has approved or provide the price point dictated as acceptable to participate. You can google any of these, they are all in the news.

California - Aetna, UnitedHealth, and Anthem Blue Cross are cancelling all subscribers in this state. Right now 58,000 have received notices and being forced to the exchange. There are more to come.

Missouri - The state's largest hospital system BJC Healthcare system (13 hospitals- and the states renowned St. Louis Children's hospital)will not be covered by the exchanges largest insurer. 79,000 people affected.

Connecticut - Aetna (the nations 3d largest insurer) is pulling out, cancelling policies. They just can't offer plans at the demanded price point for the higher service level.

Maryland - Aenta/Coventry are not offered on the exchanges, because they cannot meet the price point demanded to participate. So, No Subsidy for you 13,000 guys and gals.

South Carolina - Medical Mutual of Ohio decided to leave the state entirely in July due to Obamacare’s “vast and quite complex” new regulations. 28,000 ouch.

New York - Aenta pulling out of the exchanges there too. No subsidies.

New Jersey - again Aetna opting to not be in the exchange, 1.1 million no subsidies for you. Many are on Company plans, which may throw them to the exchanges.

Iowa - Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield - the states largest insurer, who sells 86% of individual policies decided not to participate in the exchange--no subsidies, sorry.

I'm sorry it's such a long list, there's more...

Georgia - Only five insurers are participating in the exchanges. Many have decided not to participate.

Wisconsin - Two of the three largest insurers are opting out.

I could go on. In the immortal words of Bill Clinton "I feel your pain."

Subsidies: Isn't nice that the Gov't provides subsidies for people to purchase health insurance.
First the definition of subsidies, "Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsidies
Following that Gov't only gets money is by collecting it from others (well since we having difficulty selling T bills they are printing money like crazy--Qualative Easing is another subject). So, yes, collecting money from some to distribute to others does sound like wealth redistribution. Some redistribution can be defended as in the "public interest". Oil & Farm subsidies have very in-depth reasoning defending them. Student loans are repaid- not a subsidy. Nor is the Veterans Admin. -- I'm a veteran and it is an earned benefit for having served. There are numerous subsidies in our daily life, does that mean that any/or all of them can be defended as "in the public interest"?


The Gov't does has new insurance programs: Medicare, Medicaid, SS disability, Worker's Comp. Now, there's a new one, where you will find such quotations as, "Section 1101(g) of the Act does not specify exactly how HHS should allocate funds for the purpose of this program."
This is a good read, check out the eligibility requirement.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-30/pdf/2010-18691.pdf

Richard,
Please don't be put off by engaging nature. I want a challenging discussion on this topic that would require some study effort on both our parts.
Tim

Top Hat

It becomes obvious that perhaps millions of people will not sign up for the health care bill, the savings per year for three years covering a lot of medical costs, like for a hospital visit. Moreover, people who do not file income taxes, 50% of the nation most likely won't even have to pay a fine. The bottom line.... the health care bill resolved nothing except it will be a substantial drain on middle income wage earners, the middle class getting hit the hardest. I hope someone can tell me I'm wrong. We will probably end up with more uninsured then we were before the law.

jasfourth401

I just went on the healthcare exchange for my state. My monthly premium for the same coverage dropped from 580 to 221 with the same insurance provider. This is without any subsidy factored in. Obamacare will be saving me over 4000 a year in premium cost. And so I have two words for the Hispanic Canadian from Texas that treated us to a reading from the senate floor of Green Eggs and Ham. "Screw you."

jasfourth401

Please be advised that the ACA and medicare/medicaid are not related. They are three separate programs. None touch each other. The reason medicare or medicaid doctors are leaving medicare and medicaid is because they won't accept medicare or medicaid coverage.

hprinze Loc: Central Florida

If Obamacare is so wonderful, I wonder why they didn't make it voluntary.

And why congress and some select Obama supporting organizations are exempt from it.

Loki Loc: Georgia

First question, it isn't voluntary because the government feels itself ill-equipped to process the flood of signees expressing their effusive gratitude at the generosity of our elected officials with someone else's money.
Second question, obviously it's a reward.

Homestead

It is said, that if one keeps quiet, then others might think him stupid, that may be better than one opening his mouth an proving it.

Stay away from the street.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

She just peed in you Wheaties and you pooped on the floor, again but don't worry the nurse will be right in.

Try to stay current even if it's doesn't fall into your line of thinking, it's been amended to death.

msbets

THEN DICKY, WHY HAVE A PANEL OF 15 IDIOT MORONS TO STATE WHAT AND WHO WILL GET TREATMENT.............YOU ARE A COMPLETE A--HOLE

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

The sad think for him is this may well happen to him one day and he'll wonder why. Remember Dick it was your choice and no one else's.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Richard - on the assumption that you are sincere and not purposefully attempting to mislead people, let he give you some simple things to consider. Among your claims is that Obamacare will not increase the debt or deficit. In order to believe that you'd need to believe that those recieving subsidized health care are getting the subsidies from somewhere other than the government. Or, you can believe that there are taxes from the rest of the population being imposed from it that will offset the costs of these subsidies. Now, Obama has told you many times that he has not raised taxes on anyone other than the super rich. Do you think he lied when he said that, or can your sources explain where the subsidies are coming from.

In case that was too complicated for you, let me try a macro approach. According to Obama, the ACA will provide health care services for millions of people who had been denied that before. In order to provide more health care services we'd need to have more health care providers. Is there anything in this legislation that in any way increases either the number of, or ambition to work harder by, health care workers. Everything I've read or heard anywhere suggests the exact opposite - many providers restricing their practices, reducing their hours, going from working at practices to becomeing salaried employees of larger organizations, or simply retiring early.

msbets

BMA, IF THIS IS THE SAME DICKY BOY, APPARENTLY IT'S IN MEXICALLY AND HAS A KAISER MEDICARE PLAN, KAISER IS BAD ENOUGH AS IT IS, LET ALONE, HAVING THESE RESTRICTIONS, HELL THEY PRACTICE THIS TYPE OF MEDICINE SINCE DAY ONE, AND WILL BE MOST HAPPY TO FOLLOW OVOMITCARE, I'M SOOOO TIRED OF THESE USEFUL IDIOT'S WHO CANNOT OR WILL NOT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON EXCEPT FOR SHEER STUPITY...........SEE THE BIG PICTURE, SINCE IT'S A MEDICARE PERSON........IT WILL BE THE FIRST TO FIND OUT THE HARD WAY.

Loki Loc: Georgia

He is correct in one particular: The Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional. They ruled it was a tax. After touting it as "not a tax" during the sales pitch, when forced to defend it in court, they argued it was lawful BECAUSE it was a tax. I suppose it magically morphed into one somehow after it was sold and passed as not being any such thing.

msbets

BANJO.........I BLAME ROBERTS FOR SCREWING WITH THE WORDS, HE WAS A PRESIDENT BUSH APPOINTMENT..............I DARE SAY ROBERTS WAS OFFERED A WARNING THAT COULDN'T BE REFUSED