Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've read quite a few articles and summarys about Obamacare but I haven't seen any information yet that makes it clear if it will help retirees on fixed income or end up hurting retirees once it's fully implemented in 2014. I keep reading about these insurance exchanges that are beinbg setup that will help people find affordable health insurance but there is never much detail on how that will be handled or what is considered 'affordable'.
Has anyone gotten a clear understanding if Obamacare will help or hurt retirees?
Here is the government website for The Affordable Healthcare Act where you will be able to explore all the provision and applications Home | HealthCare.gov
The Act is one part and the implementing Statutes would be located in the CFR. The Healthcare exchanges will be managed by the CMS, The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and their page on the exchanges http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/exchanges/index.html
I have read much on the implementation of the medical reform. It really in application is not so different than Medicare, as the all insurance and care shall follow Medicare Rules and Regulations. The exchanges themselves are similar to what a Medicare eligible has that there will be multiple choices of coverage.
One who is on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or some Basic Heathcare that operate in many States cannot go to the exchanges for coverage because it would not offer any advantages of insurance coverage. I have put together a post on this regard on the healthcare forum http://www.city-data.com/forum/healt...l#post24973263
Livecontent
Last edited by livecontent; 07-03-2012 at 05:28 PM..
<snip>
One who is on Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or some Basic Heathcare that operate in many States cannot go to the exchanges for coverage because it would not offer any advantages of insurance coverage. I have put together a post on this regard on the healthcare forum http://www.city-data.com/forum/healt...l#post24973263
Livecontent
On the Usenet group soc.retirement some posters are trying to make a point that paying the mandate/penalty/tax could be cheaper OOP than staying on Medicare. If I read the info you've posted correctly, if you're Medicare eligible, you can't opt out and "pay the tax". I suspect that some people think paying the tax buys them some sort of coverage. If I understand it correctly, it buys you nothing. Would you agree ??
On the Usenet group soc.retirement some posters are trying to make a point that paying the mandate/penalty/tax could be cheaper OOP than staying on Medicare. If I read the info you've posted correctly, if you're Medicare eligible, you can't opt out and "pay the tax". I suspect that some people think paying the tax buys them some sort of coverage. If I understand it correctly, it buys you nothing. Would you agree ??
People are really stupid, if they think the tax/fine buys coverage with opting out of Medicare.
Paying the tax/fine means that you have made a choice not to enroll in an eligible health plan--you then would have no medical coverage.
What is not at all clear is...under Obamacare, can doctors continue to refuse new Medicare patients?
Isn't that part of the reason why they are? If they couldn't refuse new ones they might refuse all or go to what is being called a private practice by some where they charge an annual membership fee. We have failed as a nation and a society to have a real discussion about the medical care crisis we have created in a large part not just by cost but by a shortage of doctors and other health care professionals. The current system many would agree is broke and the challenge is how to bring 30 million or more people into the system with out causing it to crash. Folks need medical assistance but we are now facing the core economic question of how to supply unlimited wants with limited resources and or how to ration what is available across a population where demand far exceeds to supply. It is not surprising that many of the states with the highest percentage of folks without medical insurance are also against expansion. They have the greatest challenge. There are many areas of the country both inner city and rural where a majority of the residents don't currently have medical insurance and are dependent on hospitals or perhaps a nearby clinic. Now they will have medical insurance and still no adequate number of primary care doctors and the few that might be around will be overburdened or flat out crushed if they don't restrict their patient inflow. It is a crisis and the real crisis has been lost by the politicians in their effort to score points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
