|
On October 16 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:53 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future. I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party. To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known. SourceIf you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful... If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is. I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists. The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described? The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown. I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here. Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown. What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no? On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected  Sorry, you slipped under the radar. Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation. Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely. I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied? Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand. Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
I see. So despite the highly polarized political environment and playing devil's advocate for even the most republican of points you kept your sanity by being disgusted by it all. Good to hear :D
|
On October 16 2013 09:44 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:53 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party. To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known. SourceIf you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful... If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is. I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists. The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described? The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown. I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here. Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown. What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no? On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected Sorry, you slipped under the radar. Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation. Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely. I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied? Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand. Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates. I see. So despite the highly polarized political environment and playing devil's advocate for even the most republican of points you kept your sanity by being disgusted by it all. Good to hear :D
Johnny is the ultimate moderate. He always says bad things about both sides and good things about both sides. He's always trying to make that scale look even!
|
On October 16 2013 09:42 LuckyFool wrote:
I got my benefits plans for 2014 through my company today and it looks like I'll be paying twice as much for the same health coverage with a lower deductible and I'm only paying for coverage for myself (thankfully I have no family I need to cover, those plans were even more ridiculous) Also no longer can I refuse coverage! woohoo.
I feel sorry for the millions of middle class Americans who don't even realize exactly what's coming to them yet, especially families with just a single working parent. Going to be interesting as time goes on and people start to really realize how much they are affected by something that they can't even refuse as they are forced to sign up and get their packages from their employers.
Republicans are crying out against this and they're just being told to shut up by the media and liberals...Middle class America is basically getting raped silly by this new wonderful "law of the land." and half the people defending it don't even realize what's coming to them.
MURICA! Land of the free and the home of the brave.
The House passed a clean bill today with two provisions to Obamacare which apparently were completely unreasonable and shot down immediately by the president.
1. Drop the exemption to the President and Congress on Obamacare (If the law is good enough for the public why isn't it good enough for the people passing it?)
2. 2 year delay on medical device tax. (Obamacare will fail unless the government can start taxing private healthcare providers apparently?)
If you dont mind my asking, how much is double? Is it going from $30 to $60? Or is it going from $300 to 600? And what kind of company is it/how much do you earn? Can you get tax credits?
|
On October 16 2013 09:51 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 09:42 LuckyFool wrote:
I got my benefits plans for 2014 through my company today and it looks like I'll be paying twice as much for the same health coverage with a lower deductible and I'm only paying for coverage for myself (thankfully I have no family I need to cover, those plans were even more ridiculous) Also no longer can I refuse coverage! woohoo.
I feel sorry for the millions of middle class Americans who don't even realize exactly what's coming to them yet, especially families with just a single working parent. Going to be interesting as time goes on and people start to really realize how much they are affected by something that they can't even refuse as they are forced to sign up and get their packages from their employers.
Republicans are crying out against this and they're just being told to shut up by the media and liberals...Middle class America is basically getting raped silly by this new wonderful "law of the land." and half the people defending it don't even realize what's coming to them.
MURICA! Land of the free and the home of the brave.
The House passed a clean bill today with two provisions to Obamacare which apparently were completely unreasonable and shot down immediately by the president.
1. Drop the exemption to the President and Congress on Obamacare (If the law is good enough for the public why isn't it good enough for the people passing it?)
2. 2 year delay on medical device tax. (Obamacare will fail unless the government can start taxing private healthcare providers apparently?)
If you dont mind my asking, how much is double? Is it going from $30 to $60? Or is it going from $300 to 600? And what kind of company is it/how much do you earn? Can you get tax credits?
Yeah I would like to know a bit more about this if possible.
I think a lot of people have a serious problem with the implementation, not the idea. I have limited knowledge, but I'm pretty sure this just forces businesses to provide healthcare which will cost the employee money. This is opposed to a system where they collect taxes as normal and the government just pays for all medical services.
|
On October 16 2013 09:48 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 09:44 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:53 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:[quote] [quote] SourceIf you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful... If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is. I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists. The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described? The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown. I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here. Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown. What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no? On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected Sorry, you slipped under the radar. Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation. Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely. I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied? Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand. Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates. I see. So despite the highly polarized political environment and playing devil's advocate for even the most republican of points you kept your sanity by being disgusted by it all. Good to hear :D Johnny is the ultimate moderate. He always says bad things about both sides and good things about both sides. He's always trying to make that scale look even!
Possibly to the point where I shouldn't be... 
|
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits.
|
United States24758 Posts
Luckyfool you said you're paying more for a lower deductable... doesn't a lower deductable mean you pay less out of pocket for medical care, and they cover more? If so an increase of 40/month might be worth it.
|
On October 16 2013 10:06 LuckyFool wrote:
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits.
On an older plan I am paying $267/month as a single individual. And tax credits cover you even if you are single with no dependents as it is based on income (something like $30k/less you get some % of tax credits).
|
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation!
|
Weird. I'm being pushed into a much lower deductible.
|
On October 16 2013 10:14 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 10:06 LuckyFool wrote:
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits. On an older plan I am paying $267/month as a single individual. And tax credits cover you even if you are single with no dependents as it is based on income (something like $30k/less you get some % of tax credits).
I am honestly curious if anybody is put in an actually difficult spot by the law. When i was self employed I had to pay thousands a year, huge money for me at the time, for what most professionals would consider terrible insurance. Under the new law you could get what I was getting, according to that Obama and Clinton video, for less than a cellphone contract. And that is before the various credits and subsidies for those who need it.
I guess I would just be excited to see some data of how it is actually working, although I guess I should be patient and wait a few years so we are sure it is actually representative
|
On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation!
No clue yet, I have to look at the benefits of each plan that is available. There is a platinum plan in my state for $282.88/month but if it doesnt offer much in the way of prescription benefits I will have to go with something else. I should be paying MUCH less from tax credits alone though (in college atm).
I am honestly confused on how having ACA is cheaper for the country than not having it.
It should be noted that I have a pre-existing condition btw (diabetic). I was on a state plan for a while in Washington and only paid ~$45/month but I moved to Texas and had no permanent address to get insurance with for a few months so I had a gap in coverage which prevented me from enrolling in another state plan, so I got enrolled into PCIP (which at $267 is probably half the price of other plans that were available to me).
|
On October 16 2013 10:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation! No clue yet, I have to look at the benefits of each plan that is available. There is a platinum plan in my state for $282.88/month but if it doesnt offer much in the way of prescription benefits I will have to go with something else. I should be paying MUCH less from tax credits alone though (in college atm). I am honestly confused on how having ACA is cheaper for the country than not having it. It should be noted that I have a pre-existing condition btw (diabetic). I was on a state plan for a while in Washington and only paid ~$45/month but I moved to Texas and had no permanent address to get insurance with for a few months so I had a gap in coverage which prevented me from enrolling in another state plan, so I got enrolled into PCIP (which at $267 is probably half the price of other plans that were available to me).
It's cheaper for the country overall partly because we'll basically be paying for people's preventative care more often than emergency care. So long as we aren't going to be turning people down at the emergency room (and haven't done so since Reagan), it makes sense to reduce these visits as much as possible.
|
On October 16 2013 11:20 Funnytoss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 10:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation! No clue yet, I have to look at the benefits of each plan that is available. There is a platinum plan in my state for $282.88/month but if it doesnt offer much in the way of prescription benefits I will have to go with something else. I should be paying MUCH less from tax credits alone though (in college atm). I am honestly confused on how having ACA is cheaper for the country than not having it. It should be noted that I have a pre-existing condition btw (diabetic). I was on a state plan for a while in Washington and only paid ~$45/month but I moved to Texas and had no permanent address to get insurance with for a few months so I had a gap in coverage which prevented me from enrolling in another state plan, so I got enrolled into PCIP (which at $267 is probably half the price of other plans that were available to me). It's cheaper for the country overall partly because we'll basically be paying for people's preventative care more often than emergency care. So long as we aren't going to be turning people down at the emergency room (and haven't done so since Reagan), it makes sense to reduce these visits as much as possible.
Yea, but the government is going to be paying a few hundred billion in tax credits alone, not including medicare/medicaid (which is also expanding coverage in some states). So healthcare spending would be bumped up to like 1.3 trillion (up from 2013's 940billion) technically, right? Or are they getting around that part of the budget by giving tax credits which just reduces revenue by the same amount?
|
I would be a bit hesitant before saying that more preventative medicine will happen in the country. poor to middle class people are still going to be stretched on their budget and will have a hard enough time fitting health insurance into their budget let alone any care alongside that premium.
|
On October 16 2013 11:31 Sermokala wrote:
I would be a bit hesitant before saying that more preventative medicine will happen in the country. poor to middle class people are still going to be stretched on their budget and will have a hard enough time fitting health insurance into their budget let alone any care alongside that premium.
Not to mention time, since a lot of low income people work multiple jobs while juggling family.
|
On October 16 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:53 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 08:08 Doublemint wrote:On October 16 2013 08:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 06:15 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 06:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 05:51 Mercy13 wrote:On October 16 2013 05:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 16 2013 04:42 Mercy13 wrote:
[quote]
What? I wasn't using the stickup analogy to describe the Republicans' tactics, just to illustrate a "negotiating" strategy that everyone can agree is illegitimate. I separately explained why I believe the Republicans' tactic is illegitimate, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to use a stickup analogy to do that.
Edit: Didn't you argue the other day that threatening a shut down is a legitimate negotiating tactic, so both sides are equally to blame? I don't have a problem with that viewpoint, provided you can explain why it's a legitimate tactic that both sides can/should be able to use in the future. I don't think Reps view themselves as threatening or causing a shutdown. A shutdown happens only when both sides refuse to agree. It's a natural consequence, not one imposed by either party. To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known. SourceIf you are unwilling to concede that the GOP's strategy has centered around using the threat of a shut down to obtain concessions from Democrats than you and I live in different universes and I don't think continuing this conversation will be very fruitful... If you are unwilling to see the other's viewpoint, than you shouldn't be posting what that viewpoint is. I understand the viewpoint that the GOP has engaged in hostage taking and / or is using the shutdown as leverage. But that's not the only viewpoint that exists. The viewpoint that the GOP never intended to use the threat of a shutdown as a negotiating tactic is not founded in reality. The article I linked cites several sources that indicate that this tactic was conceived months in advance. Can you provide any sources that support your viewpoint that the GOP didn't intend to use the threat of a shutdown in the manner I have described? The threat of a shutdown is the natural threat that exists in any budget dispute. To the extent that the GOP wanted to make the ACA a budget issue, absolutely, they made tied the ACA (or whatever their current demands are) to the threat of a shutdown. I think, though, that the GOP considers this a long over due exercise of their ordinary power of the purse. It's a bit of semantics - using the power of the purse is the same as using the threat of a shutdown - but if you emphasize the power of the purse they're just doing their job. Granted, it's not much of a substantive difference, but we're talking perspectives here. Alternatively, if you emphasize the historic norm of largely leaving mandatory spending alone, it's an exceptional use of the treat of a shutdown. What is this "power of the purse" in the context of washington politics? That's a bit much of mental gymnastics, no? On October 16 2013 08:35 Doublemint wrote:Jonny is not responding to my questions... I feel neglected Sorry, you slipped under the radar. Nominally congress has power over all spending, with added power given to the House. Ironically, congress has eroded that power by making some spending mandatory and other spending discretionary. Currently, only discretionary spending is seriously questioned in budget / appropriation bills and mandatory spending goes through with only minor changes here and there. The spending in the ACA is mandatory so it's unusual for the Reps to include it in a budget negotiation. Mandatory spending is, however, the long term budget issue for the US, so it's not something that congress can keep on autopilot indefinitely. I see, so how is this going to turn out that you, as someone who tends to identify with the republican points, will be - at least partly - satisfied? Me? I'll be happy if the government opens and the debt ceiling gets raised. I'm easy, I'm a moderate. It's the derp herding partisans in congress you need to worry about and do mental gymnastics to understand. Edit: there used to be moderates in congress. They've been slowly dying off and recently Reps elected tea party extremists and Dems fired blue dog moderates.
Can you list some of these "blue dog moderates" who were "fired"? I am really curious to see who you think fits in that class.
|
On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation!
I'm actually really interested in hearing how people are individually affected. It's mostly arm-chair politicians arguing at each other with abstract, mostly made up facts and that are almost completely unaffected themselves.
|
On October 16 2013 10:06 LuckyFool wrote:
Without going into specifics on my salary in a public forum we'll just say it's nothing that's going to change or really affect my daily lifestyle, I work for a huge company (nearly 70k employees) and it's basically going from $40 to $80 a month. I'm not up for any tax credits since I'm single with no dependents.
This is of course for the cheapest plan which is basic coverage, the premium plans were more and if I was covering a partner and or/family I would have had to pay more and but also would then qualify for tax credits.
So under your new plan you pay less than $1,000/year ($80 * 12 = $960) for health insurance? How do you translate that into the middle class 'getting raped?' You could literally triple that number (and increase your coverage/decrease your out of pocket costs) and I'd still call you insane for thinking that's 'getting raped.'
|
On October 16 2013 11:26 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 11:20 Funnytoss wrote:On October 16 2013 10:47 TheRabidDeer wrote:On October 16 2013 10:24 LuckyFool wrote:
267/month seems like alot for an individual plan. Do you know what your 2014 plan will look like yet?
and sorry- I meant I will now have a higher deductible, I'll have to pay more out of pocket in the case of some insane medical emergency. All I did doctor wise last year was get a physical which was free...lol! In order to have a lower deductible than I had for 2013 I would have to pay more monthly for the premium plan.
Anyway I really didn't mean to hijack this thread with my personal healthcare situation! No clue yet, I have to look at the benefits of each plan that is available. There is a platinum plan in my state for $282.88/month but if it doesnt offer much in the way of prescription benefits I will have to go with something else. I should be paying MUCH less from tax credits alone though (in college atm). I am honestly confused on how having ACA is cheaper for the country than not having it. It should be noted that I have a pre-existing condition btw (diabetic). I was on a state plan for a while in Washington and only paid ~$45/month but I moved to Texas and had no permanent address to get insurance with for a few months so I had a gap in coverage which prevented me from enrolling in another state plan, so I got enrolled into PCIP (which at $267 is probably half the price of other plans that were available to me). It's cheaper for the country overall partly because we'll basically be paying for people's preventative care more often than emergency care. So long as we aren't going to be turning people down at the emergency room (and haven't done so since Reagan), it makes sense to reduce these visits as much as possible. Yea, but the government is going to be paying a few hundred billion in tax credits alone, not including medicare/medicaid (which is also expanding coverage in some states). So healthcare spending would be bumped up to like 1.3 trillion (up from 2013's 940billion) technically, right? Or are they getting around that part of the budget by giving tax credits which just reduces revenue by the same amount?
The short-term reasons why the cost isn't insane are parts of the act that tax medical devices, alter hospital reimbursement protocols, change Medicare premiums, and so on. These are a big part of why the ACA can be enacted without breaking the bank and why many budget projections paint it in a good light. The only reason Part of the reason Republicans blasted many of these things during the 2012 elections and now is because eliminating them makes the law exceptionally poor governance and an easy target for future repeal.
The long-term ideal is to get away from the fee-for-service model especially in a hospital setting, increase the number of people with ready access to healthcare (which should decrease costs), and move towards HMOs. All those are big cost savings, but not immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
