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.
The real question is where are those unininsured who were expected to sign for the exchanges. The administration is very mum on the subject.
Seems like almost all the unininsured who have gotten insurance have gotten the free stuff. Aka Medicaid. Which doesn't do the ACA any good. Because the whole selling point of the ACA was providing affordable care on the exchanges (prevent discrimination against age and pre existing condition along with giving subsidies).
If they just wanted to expand Medicaid (which is what this law amounts to as of now). So be it. But Medicaid didn't have a pre existing clause and didn't charge more for older folks.
The exchanges doesn't function the way the Dems thought it would (get uninsured paying into the system and subsidize them if needed).
We are right back to square one if we can't get people to pay into the system.
Congrats. You're one of the select 18k people who'd enrolled in FL. as of 11/30. If the insurer got the right info and you paid, you're in an even more select group.
Congrats. You're one of the select 18k people who'd enrolled in FL. as of 11/30. If the insurer got the right info and you paid, you're in an even more select group.
Florida.bob already tri-care cause he's mention VA services in the past. He may or may not have other insurance.
Florida.bob already tri-care cause he's mention VA services in the past. He may or may not have other insurance.
No, not in Tri-Care. Although, the VA is where my needs are met, very well I might add. And yes, I do have private Ins as well. I am indeed fortunate to be an American Veteran.
No, not in Tri-Care. Although, the VA is where my needs are met, very well I might add. And yes, I do have private Ins as well. I am indeed fortunate to be an American Veteran.
The real question is where are those unininsured who were expected to sign for the exchanges. The administration is very mum on the subject.
Seems like almost all the unininsured who have gotten insurance have gotten the free stuff. Aka Medicaid. Which doesn't do the ACA any good. Because the whole selling point of the ACA was providing affordable care on the exchanges (prevent discrimination against age and pre existing condition along with giving subsidies).
If they just wanted to expand Medicaid (which is what this law amounts to as of now). So be it. But Medicaid didn't have a pre existing clause and didn't charge more for older folks.
The exchanges doesn't function the way the Dems thought it would (get uninsured paying into the system and subsidize them if needed).
We are right back to square one if we can't get people to pay into the system.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with raising Medicaid guidelines, to be a single individual you basically make above the poverty level in a single minimum wage job and if you get sick, you hope it's an off day and OTC can cover it. One thing I will say is we also should look at also raising the household income requirements because those who would fall under Medicaid through their income but not when you include the collective household income.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with raising Medicaid guidelines, to be a single individual you basically make above the poverty level in a single minimum wage job and if you get sick, you hope it's an off day and OTC can cover it. One thing I will say is we also should look at also raising the household income requirements because those who would fall under Medicaid through their income but not when you include the collective household income.
So this complexity of figuring out who qualifies for what, which by the way also creates a high marginal cost to improving oneself, is actually an argument in favor of flat-out universal basic care for everyone, period. Stop spending money figuring out who qualifies for what, or building impediments to making more money--just give everyone the benefits and save the money we're pissing away now on admin.
This also would accomplish one of the big goals that Obamacare fails miserably: actually getting care to the currently uninsured. 1. Obamacare will only cover half the currently uninsured over time, and 2. some of the insured will not actually be able to afford any real care due to high deductibles and high coinsurance. Obamacare is a double fail on this count.
So this complexity of figuring out who qualifies for what, which by the way also creates a high marginal cost to improving oneself, is actually an argument in favor of flat-out universal basic care for everyone, period. Stop spending money figuring out who qualifies for what, or building impediments to making more money--just give everyone the benefits and save the money we're pissing away now on admin.
This also would accomplish one of the big goals that Obamacare fails miserably: actually getting care to the currently uninsured. 1. Obamacare will only cover half the currently uninsured over time, and 2. some of the insured will not actually be able to afford any real care due to high deductibles and high coinsurance. Obamacare is a double fail on this count.
Universal coverage is fine but it has to be enough to keep doctors in business. Too many doctors aren't taking Medicare anymore because of all the cuts in reimbursements. This and other Obamacare related red tape have led to more and more doctors becoming cash-only practices. I am all for universal healthcare but not in anyway that would limit healthcare options (due to practices shutting down) and allow you to keep truly your doctor
Should Obamacare be repealed/modified because it requires employers to provide insurance for the morning after pill?
Should Obamacare be repealed/modified because it requires businesses to provide insurance to employees for getting the morning after pill? Some people believe that is murder. (I don't. Anything created within the first few weeks of conception won't have enough sense of its surroundings for its fate to matter to it).
Organizations can request exemption, but it doesn't always work:
Although the Obama administration has exempted what it calls “religious employers” from complying with the mandate, the definition is so narrow that Christian colleges, soup kitchens, nursing homes, and parachurch ministries like Family Talk, do not qualify. “According to the administration, Family Talk is not ‘religious enough’ for an exemption,” said Martin Nussbaum of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP, who is serving as co-counsel in the lawsuit. “Yet sanctity of life and protecting the unborn have long been core religious convictions for Dr. Dobson and Family Talk.” Dr. Dobson founded Family Talk in March 2010. Its centerpiece is a daily 30-minute radio broadcast, “Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk,” that seeks to reach young and old with the Judeo-Christian worldview of the family. Law Suit
Why should a church get out of paying for insurance for employees for the morning after pill, but not other businesses?
actually an argument in favor of flat-out universal basic care for everyone, period. Stop spending money figuring out who qualifies for what, or building impediments to making more money--just give everyone the benefits and save the money we're pissing away now on admin.
Here Here But your argument actually makes sense and we can't have that
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.
Should Obamacare be repealed/modified because it requires employers to provide insurance for the morning after pill?
