Republicans know they're in trouble once the website problems are solved

[SparkyJJO]

It's not a false dilemma.

We have two alternatives. Continue healthcare in the past or go with the ACA. If the ACA is repealed, we go back to the old way until someone comes up with something else. That could take decades.

IF you truly believe it's a false dilemma, you can offer me a third reasonable alternative. If your alternative is predicated on 'First we get a Republican president and 60 sitting Republican Senators', then I would not call it reasonable.

It IS a false dilemma.

The old system had issues, that was very obvious.

ACA doesn't fix a darn thing. It doesn't help half the people it was sold to as helping. It isn't actually addressing costs (no, taking money from Medicare doesn't count). We were flat out lied to about it. It forces us to pay for coverage that we don't even need (I'm a single man, I have no reason to pay for women's health), or that violates our conscience (i.e. abortion).

There IS a third solution, which you already did allude to. Scrap ACA and focus on the actual causes of rising healthcare costs. Things such as ridiculous malpractice lawsuits for example. People getting awarded millions over a minor error is retarded yet it happens all the time (note I'm not saying people shouldn't get a large chunk to live on if there indeed was severe malpractice that has seriously hurt them etc). That's only one piece of the puzzle. I don't have all the answers and I won't pretend to, but we need to stop looking at symptoms and look at finding the root of the issue.

What I'm curious about is how many government screw ups and intrusion into our lives will it take before people realize that government is not the savior and answer to everything?

 

[Daverino]

It IS a false dilemma.

The old system had issues, that was very obvious.

ACA doesn't fix a darn thing.

And that is begging the question. . . You are including your conclusion in your premise.

 

[theeedude]

It IS a false dilemma.

The old system had issues, that was very obvious.

ACA doesn't fix a darn thing. It doesn't help half the people it was sold to as helping. It isn't actually addressing costs (no, taking money from Medicare doesn't count). We were flat out lied to about it. It forces us to pay for coverage that we don't even need (I'm a single man, I have no reason to pay for women's health), or that violates our conscience (i.e. abortion).

There IS a third solution, which you already did allude to. Scrap ACA and focus on the actual causes of rising healthcare costs. Things such as ridiculous malpractice lawsuits for example. People getting awarded millions over a minor error is retarded yet it happens all the time (note I'm not saying people shouldn't get a large chunk to live on if there indeed was severe malpractice that has seriously hurt them etc). That's only one piece of the puzzle. I don't have all the answers and I won't pretend to, but we need to stop looking at symptoms and look at finding the root of the issue.

What I'm curious about is how many government screw ups and intrusion into our lives will it take before people realize that government is not the savior and answer to everything?

GOP had a chance to fix health care, they tried tort reform in some states, it did absolutely nothing. The only Republican idea that has a chance of working is Obamacare.

 

[berzerker60]

(I'm a single man, I have no reason to pay for women's health)

Glad to hear you will never have children and were never born, and thus women's reproductive health isn't relevant to you.

 

[Daverino]

It IS a false dilemma.
(I'm a single man, I have no reason to pay for women's health)

I'm not in the army. I have no reason to pay for an Abrams tank.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm not in the army. I have no reason to pay for an Abrams tank.

Maybe if taxpayers were actually allowed to have some say in where our money went, we wouldn't have so many deadly, expensive military adventures abroad.

Just sayin'...

 

[First]

But wait.

More than 9.5% to premiums. That doesn't count deductible or copay.

12, 500 out of pocket that doesn't include premiums.

Don't get caught on the fancy word games. Look at the real cost. I am not unique. I'm a single parent whose kid has a disease. If you believe Obama, I'm the kind of person this law was supposed to help.

Yes but you're still eligible for a subsidy. I'm sure sactoking can better answer this than I can, but paying $17K seems inordinately steep unless you're talking about costs for your son that aren't normally covered with 60%/70%/80% coinsurance. Maybe you're referring to this, which is definitely something that would need to be fixed and I wouldn't blame you for being mad....except as I said before, the solution wouldn't be to get rid of Obamacare or something nutty like that. Fix the loophole.

 

[First]

Your post:


My post:

I suppose I could make my posts clear enough that you could understand them, but then smart people wouldn't want to read them. How would that be fun for me? For the record, "a tax on health care products" refers to the medical device tax. I suppose the part where I didn't use exactly the same words confused you.

You were still non-specific and, frankly, your posts are such nauseating redundant diatribe that I mostly skimmed said rant. Meh.

You've touted the medical device tax (see, I used the exact same words you used so that you'd know what I meant) as providing $30 billion to fund Obamacare. And you've said you do not support the medical device tax. If you'd care to weigh in one more time, we'd have a consensus and could reliably state that two out of three Firsts support/do not support the medical device tax.

The fact that I don't support it doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality and therefore still merits mentioning. See. It still exists. In reality.

Two other points. First, "Medicare reimbursement was already below the cost of providing the service" does not refer to the doughnut hole. Unfortunately I'm at a loss on how to make that any more clear. Perhaps someone with a background in special education could step in and help me.

I can't help that your vague nonsense in one post continues to be vague nonsense repeated again in yet another post.

Second, maybe $30 billion is "inconsequential peanuts", but $30 billion here and $30 billion there and pretty soon you're talking some real money.

Yawn, yet more conservative platitudes derping.

 

[First]

I didn't originally quote it, so I didn't look it up. But now that I have, I wonder why you left out

Yet more deflection about a random topic I've never denied. Meh wimp.

 

[rudeguy]

Yet more deflection about a random topic I've never denied. Meh wimp.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35809812&postcount=667

 

[First]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35809812&postcount=667

Derp yes

 

[rudeguy]

Derp yes

I like simple


Why?

 

[Matt1970]

Yet more deflection about a random topic I've never denied. Meh wimp.

Yes, you are deflecting. You also conveniently left out the part about "people who have successfully selected a plan, but that haven’t yet paid for it" when trying to tout the sites massive success rate. You had to chop off half the paragraph to make sure to not include that part. Hack boy.

 

[1prophet]

Maybe if taxpayers were actually allowed to have some say in where our money went, we wouldn't have so many deadly, expensive military adventures abroad.

Just sayin'...

That's easy, bring back the draft, then watch how people start caring more about their government instead of what the Kardashians or Miley Cyrus are up to.

 

[Daverino]

Yes but you're still eligible for a subsidy. I'm sure sactoking can better answer this than I can, but paying $17K seems inordinately steep unless you're talking about costs for your son that aren't normally covered with 60%/70%/80% coinsurance.

The only way he would not be eligible for a subsidy is if his MAGI was below 100% of the Federal Poverty Limit or about 400% of the Federal Poverty Limit. For a family of two, that's between $15,510 and $62,040. However, that's just for his insurance, not his child's insurance.

For the child, however, assuming that he's under the age of 18, he'd be covered by Medicaid or CHIP. However, Texas decided not to expand Medicaid, and any child in a household over 133% the limit would not be eligible for Medicaid in that state. The CHIP limit for Texas is 201%.

State exchanges are required to integrate Medicaid, CHIP and subsidy information, but Texas does not have its own exchange. Since the limit for the child is greater than the limit for the parent either the child is below 201% CHIP limit or above the 100% exchange subsidy limit.

I think so long as the OP's MAGI is under $62,040 his family would be eligible for a subsidy just like everyone else.

 

[First]

I like simple


Why?

Lots of reasons, such as pre-existing conditions mandate, individual mandate, insurance for children up to 26 on parent's plans, affordability and access for millions who didn't previously have it, etc. With more subsidies and more competition among insurers, it can get even better and more affordable. But that's perhaps another thread.

Yes, you are deflecting. You also conveniently left out the part about "people who have successfully selected a plan, but that haven’t yet paid for it" when trying to tout the sites massive success rate. You had to chop off half the paragraph to make sure to not include that part. Hack boy.

lol, yet more deflecting on points I never denied (as if anyone here buys your bullshit about people needing to pay their premiums weeks ahead of time).

Keep bitching out on addressing that NY Times article, kid. Here for all to see.

 

[First]

The only way he would not be eligible for a subsidy is if his MAGI was below 100% of the Federal Poverty Limit or about 400% of the Federal Poverty Limit. For a family of two, that's between $15,510 and $62,040. However, that's just for his insurance, not his child's insurance.

For the child, however, assuming that he's under the age of 18, he'd be covered by Medicaid or CHIP. However, Texas decided not to expand Medicaid, and any child in a household over 133% the limit would not be eligible for Medicaid in that state. The CHIP limit for Texas is 201%.

State exchanges are required to integrate Medicaid, CHIP and subsidy information, but Texas does not have its own exchange. Since the limit for the child is greater than the limit for the parent either the child is below 201% CHIP limit or above the 100% exchange subsidy limit.

I think so long as the OP's MAGI is under $62,040 his family would be eligible for a subsidy just like everyone else.

Good info, thanks. I feel bad for Texans. rudeguy is in MI though. Unless you're just pointing out how shitty it is to live in Texas healthcare-wise.

 

[Matt1970]

Lots of reasons, such as pre-existing conditions mandate, individual mandate, insurance for children up to 26 on parent's plans, affordability and access for millions who didn't previously have it, etc. With more subsidies and more competition among insurers, it can get even better and more affordable. But that's perhaps another thread.



lol, yet more deflecting on points I never denied (as if anyone here buys your bullshit about people needing to pay their premiums weeks ahead of time).

Keep bitching out on addressing that NY Times article, kid. Here for all to see.

You are quoting me addressing it you moron. You are the one who can't accept the fact your precious little circle jerk liberal article got some numbers wrong. Even if you were 100% right, which you aren't, costs rising at the same pace as inflation, and I know this is very hard for you liberals to understand, is NOT cutting spending.

And people aren't paying their premiums weeks ahead of time because they want to wait till the last second, or is 30-40% of the backend of the website not even there?

 

[Daverino]

Good info, thanks. I feel bad for Texans. rudeguy is in MI though. Unless you're just pointing out how shitty it is to live in Texas healthcare-wise.

Oops, I thought he was in Texas.

Michigan did go along with the Medicaid expansions, although there were some caveats. The expansion does not happen until April 4th of next year and still requires some approvals. Michigan did not create its own exchange. Instead it has a partnership exchange, so the main gateway is healthcare.gov, the federal site.

That lag, between the Jan 1 cutoff for tax credits in the exchange and the April 4th implementation of expanded Medicaid has basically turned Michigan into a mess for people around the poverty limit. You can read about it here. The long short of it is that people who may be eligible for Medicaid have to wait to see, but in the meantime the tax credits have passed them by. And of course if you want to switch to Medicaid and you policy is up in January (as is common) you're going to go without insurance for four months on the hope that you really ARE eligible for Medicaid.

So knowing that Rude is from Michigan? Yeah, I feel for you man. Your state really dropped the ball on the ACA and made things worse by going along with the law, but dithering in the implementation. If Rude is between the 133% and 400% level (i.e. not eligible for Medicaid, but eligible for a subsidy) he should be fine. Below 133% though, he won't be eligible for subsidies AND won't be eligible for Medicaid until April. That's my understanding at least.

 

[First]

You are quoting me addressing it you moron.

I am quoting you failing to address that post. Think carefully.

You are the one who can't accept the fact your precious little circle jerk liberal article got some numbers wrong. Even if you were 100% right, which you aren't, costs rising at the same pace as inflation, and I know this is very hard for you liberals to understand, is NOT cutting spending.

Yikes. I already dismantled your bullshit argument about the NY Times' articles number being what you laughably claimed was an unexplained "0.6%" by having to baby you with the reality that CPI-U numbers change based on the base year being used, which can easily explain away half a percent along with all sorts of other factors. Your response was nothing, zero. That's a wimpout.

And people aren't paying their premiums weeks ahead of time because they want to wait till the last second, or is 30-40% of the backend of the website not even there?

Jesus you're slow. AFAIK no one is paying their ACA premiums through healthcare.gov, they're paying premiums through the insurer they enrolled through on healthcare.gov. So why the fuck are you bringing up the fact that some of the 29K who enrolled didn't pay their premiums?

 

[First]

Oops, I thought he was in Texas.

Michigan did go along with the Medicaid expansions, although there were some caveats. The expansion does not happen until April 4th of next year and still requires some approvals. Michigan did not create its own exchange. Instead it has a partnership exchange, so the main gateway is healthcare.gov, the federal site.

That lag, between the Jan 1 cutoff for tax credits in the exchange and the April 4th implementation of expanded Medicaid has basically turned Michigan into a mess for people around the poverty limit. You can read about it here. The long short of it is that people who may be eligible for Medicaid have to wait to see, but in the meantime the tax credits have passed them by. And of course if you want to switch to Medicaid and you policy is up in January (as is common) you're going to go without insurance for four months on the hope that you really ARE eligible for Medicaid.

So knowing that Rude is from Michigan? Yeah, I feel for you man. Your state really dropped the ball on the ACA and made things worse by going along with the law, but dithering in the implementation. If Rude is between the 133% and 400% level (i.e. not eligible for Medicaid, but eligible for a subsidy) he should be fine. Below 133% though, he won't be eligible for subsidies AND won't be eligible for Medicaid until April. That's my understanding at least.

Holy shit that is awful. I feel much worse for rudeguy now knowing that, especially that 3 month gap next year. Hope your son doesn't get sick during that time rudeguy.

 

[Matt1970]

Jesus you're slow. AFAIK no one is paying their ACA premiums through healthcare.gov, they're paying premiums through the insurer they enrolled through on healthcare.gov. So why the fuck are you bringing up the fact that some of the 29K who enrolled didn't pay their premiums?

I am not slow, you are just a hack who won't accept reality.

"The so-called back end — where the actual business of paying for and getting enrolled in insurance takes place, isn’t working perfectly. Officials say they’re aware of it, and reminding people to make sure they are, in fact, fully enrolled."

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/next-...customers-are-you-really-enrolled-2D11678828#

 

[First]

I am not slow, you are just a hack who won't accept reality.

"The so-called back end — where the actual business of paying for and getting enrolled in insurance takes place, isn’t working perfectly. Officials say they’re aware of it, and reminding people to make sure they are, in fact, fully enrolled."

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/next-...customers-are-you-really-enrolled-2D11678828#

The best you got is "It's not working perfectly"? For serial?

No wonder you were picked on as a kid. I'd bully you too.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You know things are bad when NBC is talking badly about the ACA Marketplace website.