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.
Most people who carefully put money aside for necessary expenses in the event of the possibility of being temporarily unemployed for any reason (and thousands do exactly that and don't simply live hand to mouth) do indeed use their savings to cover medical expenses if necessary. They budget their savings accordingly.
How would you expect to pay medical expenses in a job where medical coverage isn't part of the package? Even those companies who provide medical coverage usually make a new employee wait 6 months to a year before they're eligible and the majority require an employee co-pay.
Yes, we know you now work for city government but step out of your shoes for just a wee moment and consider others who don't have those benefits. Yes, there are services available to those who are impoverished but I doubt you even know anything about that.
Hopefully you're putting money aside from even your small stipend so that when you next are laid off you'll have at least something to carry you over if you again get to the point where UC is about to give out.
You should maybe think before pressing "submit". If you did you might be able to avoid all those smacking icons which only make unintelligent responses look even more so.
To answer the OPs questions, if you make very little and fit the demographic, you will be placed on Medicaid, which, unlike what people here like to mention, is a pretty good plan and most people who have consistent Medicaid coverage are in better health than the uninsured and the working poor who do have insurance but do not want to spend the co-pay money to visit the doctor. Medicaid is basically similar to the "pools" of insurance except it is fully paid for by the government. One does not get a "government" medical card, they get a regular insurance card from an insurance company. So if you are in the same situation and are in PA, you will be lucky to get really good health coverage for free, you won't even have to pay for Rx drugs or any doctor appointments, including specialist.
In regards to the bolded above, I have NEVER had to wait 6 months for insurance after starting a job. You must have not had a new job within the past 5-10 years. Most employers offer coverage within 30 days. My current and previous employers offered them the first day you started.
Coming from you Jim, that's a rave. I'm so gratified to get at least that much of an accommodation from you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
As a member of the middle class, I don't like what Obamacare is going to mean to me.
Let me assure you, I don't personally derive any personal benefit from ACA whatsoever. I already had fantastic health insurance that was affordable to me, no one was threatening to not issue me coverage, etc. It isn't about what's good for you or me, but rather what's good overall. I know people hate to admit it, but someone else's basic needs count far more than our own personal comfort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
My insurance rates are steadily rising along with the insurance rates of the vast majority of Americans, which is in direct opposition to the affordable part of the ACA.
No it isn't. Affordability is like pregnancy. Either something can be afforded, or not.
Can you afford health insurance, Jim? Answer the question. Can you afford it, under ACA?
Is it going to be affordable?
Or are you going to be bankrupted by paying for it?
Please don't draw back on the partisan sound bites: Answer the question: Are you going to be bankrupted by paying for it?
No.
You won't.
Because of the Affordability provision of ACA ensures that if you really couldn't afford it, you would be subsidized. The exceptions involve cases where RWNJs running red states refused to expand Medicaid, even though their states have the economic activity within them to be able to afford to do so. They simply don't want to, because they want to stick it to poor people. No other reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
2/3 of uninsured Americans will still be uninsured according the CBO
Overall, uninsured will decrease from 55 million (non-elderly) in 2013 down to about 29 million (non-elderly) in 2017. That is a 47% reduction. Note that that includes undocumented aliens. I wonder what percentage of the critics of ACA are upset that so many "illegals" aren't covered by ACA. Be honest, Jim... how many critics of ACA do you think will be upset about so many "illegals" not being covered? I bet they wouldn't even care much about non-citizens in general.
When you take non-citizens out of the mix the numbers are more positive, aren't they? Coverage goes from 80% all the way up to 90%. Only 10% of American citizens will be uninsured. That's a big improvement, a reduction by half. Can we do better? Sure: Just get the RWNJs in Congress out of the way and I bet we can get that up to 98%. You going to join us, Jim? I didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Your argument that anyone not supporting the ACA being somehow anti-poor is specious.
I respect your right to believe that. The reality is that the critics of ACA are insisting that people take sides, instead of working together to make sure that the dispute isn't necessary. If they really cared about the poor, they wouldn't be engaging in such blatantly obstructionist behaviors, but rather would be proposing comprehensive programs that would be demonstrably better at making healthcare affordable. But they don't, because they only care about making healthcare more affordable for themselves, not for poor people.
Coming from you Jim, that's a rave. I'm so gratified to get at least that much of an accommodation from you.
Let me assure you, I don't personally derive any personal benefit from ACA whatsoever. I already had fantastic health insurance that was affordable to me, no one was threatening to not issue me coverage, etc. It isn't about what's good for you or me, but rather what's good overall. I know people hate to admit it, but someone else's basic needs count far more than our own personal comfort.
No it isn't. Affordability is like pregnancy. Either something can be afforded, or not.
Can you afford health insurance, Jim? Answer the question. Can you afford it, under ACA?
Is it going to be affordable?
Or are you going to be bankrupted by paying for it?
Please don't draw back on the partisan sound bites: Answer the question: Are you going to be bankrupted by paying for it?
No.
You won't.
Because of the Affordability provision of ACA ensures that if you really couldn't afford it, you would be subsidized. The exceptions involve cases where RWNJs running red states refused to expand Medicaid, even though their states have the economic activity within them to be able to afford to do so. They simply don't want to, because they want to stick it to poor people. No other reason.
Overall, uninsured will decrease from 55 million (non-elderly) in 2013 down to about 29 million (non-elderly) in 2017. That is a 47% reduction. Note that that includes undocumented aliens. I wonder what percentage of the critics of ACA are upset that so many "illegals" aren't covered by ACA. Be honest, Jim... how many critics of ACA do you think will be upset about so many "illegals" not being covered? I bet they wouldn't even care much about non-citizens in general.
When you take non-citizens out of the mix the numbers are more positive, aren't they? Coverage goes from 80% all the way up to 90%. Only 10% of American citizens will be uninsured. That's a big improvement, a reduction by half. Can we do better? Sure: Just get the RWNJs in Congress out of the way and I bet we can get that up to 98%. You going to join us, Jim? I didn't think so.
I respect your right to believe that. The reality is that the critics of ACA are insisting that people take sides, instead of working together to make sure that the dispute isn't necessary. If they really cared about the poor, they wouldn't be engaging in such blatantly obstructionist behaviors, but rather would be proposing comprehensive programs that would be demonstrably better at making healthcare affordable. But they don't, because they only care about making healthcare more affordable for themselves, not for poor people.
It must be difficult to have to try so hard to promote something so bad. I would almost feel sorry for you, but for the fact that your inability to admit that Obamacare is a train wreck stems from your ideological views rather than any belief that the law is actually a good one.
Will Obamacare bankrupt me? No, it won't. However, we have already had to make adjustments in our savings plans for retirement and our children's college funds, and I see more such adjustments in our future considering that premiums aren't showing any sign of dropping in the near future. Our money isn't going to any luxury expenses, I assure you. We live a very simple lifestyle and try to save as much as we can for the future. But I suppose in your view it's okay if we don't have enough savings to retire on, since we can just become dependent on big government, right?
Out of curiosity, since you seem to believe that Obamacare is such a good thing, can you explain why everyone from legislators to union employees are doing everything they can to avoid having to be subjected to it? The IRS employees union is even trying to get an exemption, which should scare any rational individual considering that these are the people who are going to be enforcing the new system.
To answer the OPs questions, if you make very little and fit the demographic, you will be placed on Medicaid, which, unlike what people here like to mention, is a pretty good plan and most people who have consistent Medicaid coverage are in better health than the uninsured and the working poor who do have insurance but do not want to spend the co-pay money to visit the doctor. Medicaid is basically similar to the "pools" of insurance except it is fully paid for by the government. One does not get a "government" medical card, they get a regular insurance card from an insurance company. So if you are in the same situation and are in PA, you will be lucky to get really good health coverage for free, you won't even have to pay for Rx drugs or any doctor appointments, including specialist.
In regards to the bolded above, I have NEVER had to wait 6 months for insurance after starting a job. You must have not had a new job within the past 5-10 years. Most employers offer coverage within 30 days. My current and previous employers offered them the first day you started.
I have a city government job and I was able to get insurance after 60 days
ACA is the "Affordable" Care Act - not the Costs Go Down Care Act. And it does absolutely make healthcare affordable for many for whom it was not affordable before.
Perhaps you're just upset that you were able to afford healthcare before, and therefore didn't benefit from the Affordability provision of the act, at least not now.
If you don't understand why affordable is a bit of a misnomer for a law that will cause overrall healthcare costs to rise, will increase the costs for most people on the individual market, and will cost the government a ton of money you are being intentionally dense.
I'll grant you the act has a ton of redistribution in it to people who are low income and even more so to people who are bad health underwriting risks, but the common usage and understanding of the word affordable is not synonymous with socialized. What's next, replacing the name of the farm/foodstamp bill with "the affordable food act?" Maybe section 8 vouchers can be "the affordable housing act." The free cellphone bill can be changed to "the affordable phone act." Nothing more affordable than paid for by someone else after all.
Coming from you Jim, that's a rave. I'm so gratified to get at least that much of an accommodation from you.
Let me assure you, I don't personally derive any personal benefit from ACA whatsoever. I already had fantastic health insurance that was affordable to me, no one was threatening to not issue me coverage, etc. It isn't about what's good for you or me, but rather what's good overall. I know people hate to admit it, but someone else's basic needs count far more than our own personal comfort.
No it isn't. Affordability is like pregnancy. Either something can be afforded, or not.
Can you afford health insurance, Jim? Answer the question. Can you afford it, under ACA?
Is it going to be affordable?
Or are you going to be bankrupted by paying for it?
Please don't draw back on the partisan sound bites: Answer the question: Are you going to be bankrupted by paying for it?
No.
You won't.
Because of the Affordability provision of ACA ensures that if you really couldn't afford it, you would be subsidized. The exceptions involve cases where RWNJs running red states refused to expand Medicaid, even though their states have the economic activity within them to be able to afford to do so. They simply don't want to, because they want to stick it to poor people. No other reason.
Overall, uninsured will decrease from 55 million (non-elderly) in 2013 down to about 29 million (non-elderly) in 2017. That is a 47% reduction. Note that that includes undocumented aliens. I wonder what percentage of the critics of ACA are upset that so many "illegals" aren't covered by ACA. Be honest, Jim... how many critics of ACA do you think will be upset about so many "illegals" not being covered? I bet they wouldn't even care much about non-citizens in general.
When you take non-citizens out of the mix the numbers are more positive, aren't they? Coverage goes from 80% all the way up to 90%. Only 10% of American citizens will be uninsured. That's a big improvement, a reduction by half. Can we do better? Sure: Just get the RWNJs in Congress out of the way and I bet we can get that up to 98%. You going to join us, Jim? I didn't think so.
I respect your right to believe that. The reality is that the critics of ACA are insisting that people take sides, instead of working together to make sure that the dispute isn't necessary. If they really cared about the poor, they wouldn't be engaging in such blatantly obstructionist behaviors, but rather would be proposing comprehensive programs that would be demonstrably better at making healthcare affordable. But they don't, because they only care about making healthcare more affordable for themselves, not for poor people.
??? ACA defines affordability on the narrow basis of income and premium cost. No other financial factors are considered.
So if a person's expenses include 35% for rent, 20% for child support, 15% for student loan repayment, and 20% other debt service, a health insurance premium of 8% would be considered affordable even though the person would literally have to default somewhere in order to eat.
To answer the OPs questions, if you make very little and fit the demographic, you will be placed on Medicaid, which, unlike what people here like to mention, is a pretty good plan and most people who have consistent Medicaid coverage are in better health than the uninsured and the working poor who do have insurance but do not want to spend the co-pay money to visit the doctor. Medicaid is basically similar to the "pools" of insurance except it is fully paid for by the government. One does not get a "government" medical card, they get a regular insurance card from an insurance company. So if you are in the same situation and are in PA, you will be lucky to get really good health coverage for free, you won't even have to pay for Rx drugs or any doctor appointments, including specialist.
In regards to the bolded above, I have NEVER had to wait 6 months for insurance after starting a job. You must have not had a new job within the past 5-10 years. Most employers offer coverage within 30 days. My current and previous employers offered them the first day you started.
The bolded statement is demonstrably FALSE. Medicaid patients are not in better health than the uninsured, nor do they receive better healthcare.
Preoperative patient risk factors were more common among Medicare and Medicaid populations. Unadjusted mortality and complication rates for Medicare (6.9%, 36.6%), Medicaid (5.7%, 31.4%) and uninsured (5.2%, 31.4%) patient groups were higher compared with private insurance groups (2.9%, 29.9%; p < 0.001). In addition, mortality was lowest for patients with private insurance for all types of valve operations. Medicaid patients accrued the longest unadjusted hospital length of stay and highest total hospital costs compared with other payer groups (p < 0.001). Importantly, after risk adjustment, uninsured and Medicaid payer status conferred the highest odds of risk-adjusted mortality and morbidity compared with private insurance status, which were higher than those for Medicare.
CONCLUSIONS:
Uninsured and Medicaid payer status is associated with increased risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality and morbidity among patients undergoing cardiac valve operations compared with Medicare and private insurance. In addition, Medicaid patients accrued the longest hospital stays and highest total costs. Primary payer status should be considered as an independent risk factor during preoperative risk stratification and planning.
Unadjusted mortality for Medicare (4.4%; odds ratio [OR], 3.51), Medicaid (3.7%; OR, 2.86), and Uninsured (3.2%; OR, 2.51) patient groups were higher compared to Private Insurance groups (1.3%, P < 0.001). Mortality was lowest for Private Insurance patients independent of operation. After controlling for age, gender, income, geographic region, operation, and 30 comorbid conditions, Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs (P < 0.001). Medicaid (P < 0.001) and Uninsured (P < 0.001) payer status independently conferred the highest adjusted risks of mortality.
It must be difficult to have to try so hard to promote something so bad. I would almost feel sorry for you, but for the fact that your inability to admit that Obamacare is a train wreck stems from your ideological views rather than any belief that the law is actually a good one.
What an incredibly vacuous statement. Are you so desperate to attack what you don't like that you have to stoop to such pointless and baseless nonsense, rife with ridiculously unjustified condescension and with ridiculously self-serving self-ratification? You need to direct your own rhetoric back at yourself, because you're simply engage in projection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Will Obamacare bankrupt me? No, it won't.
Thanks for being honest. That's all that matters. You attacked affordability, and I knew you were just bloviating about that - that you could still afford healthcare, and that therefore ACA was indeed doing what it was supposed to, despite your self-serving and nonsensical rhetoric trying to dupe people into believing the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
However, we have already had to make adjustments in our savings plans for retirement and our children's college funds
The people who will now be able to afford healthcare, who could not previously, would love to have those "problems". Let's try to keep things in perspective, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Out of curiosity, since you seem to believe that Obamacare is such a good thing, can you explain why everyone from legislators to union employees are doing everything they can to avoid having to be subjected to it?
Selfishness. Self-centerness. Callous self-interest. Note the four letters common in all three of those characterizations. They are placing their own personal comfort and luxury - such as the ability to afford that retirement condo on the golf course instead of the one a bit less luxurious; or such as the ability to afford new textbooks instead of used textbooks for their children in college; etc. - over the basic needs of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
If you don't understand why affordable is a bit of a misnomer for a law that will cause overrall healthcare costs to rise, will increase the costs for most people on the individual market, and will cost the government a ton of money you are being intentionally dense.
No, sir: Dense is taking the word "affordable" and perverting it in the manner you're suggesting, claiming that because you personally may have to pay a little more, and give up a few luxuries, that the law isn't doing what it is supposed to - making healthcare affordable for more people. It is still affordable to you, and it is now affordable to others, for whom it was not affordable before. If you're going to claim some grievance about the parsing of words, then you should not be engaging in that offense yourself, especially since the reality is that it leaves you holding the bag as the only one using the word improperly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
I'll grant you the act has a ton of redistribution in it to people who are low income and even more so to people who are bad health underwriting risks
Because they are "people who are bad health underwriting risks", are you saying that they shouldn't be able to afford healthcare? Don't equivocate. Answer the question. Should they be able to afford healthcare? And if not, what are you saying about what should happen with their health instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
??? ACA defines affordability on the narrow basis of income and premium cost. No other financial factors are considered. So if a person's expenses include 35% for rent, 20% for child support, 15% for student loan repayment, and 20% other debt service, a health insurance premium of 8% would be considered affordable even though the person would literally have to default somewhere in order to eat.
So let's fix that. ACA is an improvement but it isn't perfect, and I'd be very happy to consider supporting your proposed change to the definition of affordability that ensures that people who are in the predicament you outlined aren't forced to default.
As long as it doesn't regress the number of people who can now afford healthcare overall, of course. If someone is honestly interesting in increasing the number of people who can afford healthcare, then let's chat about that. If someone is just looking for a scurrilous dodge to exploit rhetorically to try to project the message that their personal comfort and luxury is more important than other people affording their basic needs, then they should be honest about about that.
What an incredibly vacuous statement. Are you so desperate to attack what you don't like that you have to stoop to such pointless and baseless nonsense, rife with ridiculously unjustified condescension and with ridiculously self-serving self-ratification? You need to direct your own rhetoric back at yourself, because you're simply engage in projection.
You've been riding the ideological pony for the entirety of this thread. You've skirted, skated and twisted around the negative facts about Obamacare and continued to promote a law that anyone with two brain cells to bounce off of each other realizes is a bad piece of legislation. You can call me vacuous - or anything else you want to - but that won't keep me from pointing out that you are being dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Thanks for being honest. That's all that matters. You attacked affordability, and I knew you were just bloviating about that - that you could still afford healthcare, and that therefore ACA was indeed doing what it was supposed to, despite your self-serving and nonsensical rhetoric trying to dupe people into believing the contrary.
The people who will now be able to afford healthcare, who could not previously, would love to have those "problems". Let's try to keep things in perspective, eh?
Let me explain something. I grew up poor. My parents worked their tails off to make sure that their children had enough to eat and decent clothes to wear. I can't count the number of times my parents didn't eat dinner so that there would be enough for us kids to eat. I have spent my adult life working my tail off in order to ensure that my children would be able to obtain a good education without going into massive amounts of debt, and to ensure that I wouldn't be a burden on them when I left the work force. You are self-righteously promoting a law that is fundamentally changing my ability to do those things, and you are being condescending to anyone who disagrees with you. Your entire attitude is that of some professor patiently explaining a lesson to his unmotivated college class, with one major difference - the professor actually has some understanding of the subject matter, while you are narrowmindedly focusing on only a certain portion of the effects of the ACA so that you can feel morally superior to those of us who are trying to point out the flaws with the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Selfishness. Self-centerness. Callous self-interest. Note the four letters common in all three of those characterizations. They are placing their own personal comfort and luxury - such as the ability to afford that retirement condo on the golf course instead of the one a bit less luxurious; or such as the ability to afford new textbooks instead of used textbooks for their children in college; etc. - over the basic needs of others.
I think I understand now. You are against the idea that anyone should reward themselves for working hard and that everyone should devote their lives to making sure that the "basic" needs of others are met. Thank you for admitting that you are a socialist. It will make future discussions with you a bit easier, as I will no longer have to waste logic in my replies to you.
You've been riding the ideological pony for the entirety of this thread.
You weren't riding any "ideological pony" there. With the exception of five words in the middle, all that was a tantrum filled with nothing by vitriolic personal attack. Take responsibility for what you posted and admit that it was nothing more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
You've skirted, skated and twisted around the negative facts about Obamacare
Likely translation: I've presented a very clear and compelling repudiation of your defecation on the ACA, and it upsets you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
You can call me vacuous
The point is that I don't. I don't call you vacuous or anything else. I argue against the ideas, against the perspectives, against the advocacy - not against you personally. I don't stoop to such disreputable forms of discourse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
but that won't keep me from pointing out that you are being dishonest.
I'm not being dishonest. I'm repudiating a perspective that you like. You're just going to have to live with it, because what you are advocating is actually immoral vis a vis generally universal parameters thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Let me explain something. I grew up poor.
You don't matter. I don't matter. Here you're heading right back into the transgressive kind of rhetoric - personal rhetoric. I haven't read further yet so I can say this: Let's say I don't believe what you've written about yourself? Or more generally, how would I hold what you write with regard to your own experience up to appropriate scrutiny for inclusion as a relevant part of this conversation? How am I supposed to make that point - that you're claiming things that you aren't able or willing to prove? It's a violation to attack you personally. I could claim that I grew up poor (I did, but the point is that that doesn't matter), and that whatever it is you're about to relate is patently false. What constructive purpose do such comments have? None. And stooping to personally attacking another poster, as you have, instead of attacking the ideas that the poster expressed, is not only not constructive, but it is more generally disreputable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
You are self-righteously promoting a law that is fundamentally changing my ability to do those things
I'm not going to try to compare our respective economic statuses, because, again, you and I don't matter. What I'm promoting is a law that is fundamentally more moral, based on the most widely-held and yet still diverse definitions thereof, than the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
and you are being condescending to anyone who disagrees with you.
Pointing out that an idea that someone expresses is less moral, and outlining the foundation of that assessment, quoting both religious and non-religious standards of morality, is not condescension. If you don't want something you support to be labeled immoral, don't support things that are immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
I think I understand now. You are against the idea that anyone should reward themselves for working hard and that everyone should devote their lives to making sure that the "basic" needs of others are met.
No, that's not it at all. No one is suggesting such an absolutist view. We're talking about ACA, a reasonable balance between you and I being able to provide for our families and fulfilling society's obligation to address the basic needs of all citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Thank you for admitting that you are a socialist.
What utterly self-serving poppycock. Don't shove words in my mouth and then claim I said them. I haven't called you a money-grubbing greed-monger - don't call me a socialist. Deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
It will make future discussions with you a bit easier, as I will no longer have to waste logic in my replies to you.
If you call me a name - and calling me a socialist is indeed calling me a name, since I'm not a socialist - then I will ask the moderators to take action against you. You're fairly forewarned. Don't think you're above the rules here.
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.