Obamanuts: Are you happy about the Obamacare delay?

[Flopper]

I bet the ObamaCare delay for employers also covers Congress and government employees...who were all hyperventilating about being forced onto the exchanges.

The order delays the requirement that employers with over 50 employees must offer health insurance. That's it. The rest of ACA, health insurance exchanges, elimination of pre-existing conditions, lifetime maximums, extended Medicaid coverage, and other provisions continue as scheduled.

It sounds like the delay is warranted.

For political reasons for sure.

So tell me.....INDIVIDUALS are REQUIRED to comply through the Exchanges jan 1, correct?

Individuals are require to have health insurance either through their employer, government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid or through individual policies. People who do not have a health insurance plan available through their employer are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Although, I have not seen any thing published, people that work for employers that have been given the 1 year delay may be exempted from the individual mandate.

 

[Flopper]

​

Your friends may find wishfull thinking to be very different from the "reality".

If healthcare was treated as a personal enrollment over depending upon the employer, and they were able to carry this same health care plan instead of changing to a new one with each employer, there wouldn't be a concern for preexisting conditions now would there?

If they were terminated by an employer with benefits and had to find it on their own, there would be.

Then what?

That was precisely my point in a health care system where the individual chose a provider and a plan over the employer providing it. This way it would be a part of their individual coverage when they travel from employer to employer. How often do people have to wait until they acquired a certain amount of hours first, simply because they have signed on with a new employer? I have not heard Obamacare changing THAT policy standard. Individual plans would require less paperwork, as you take it with you, unless you opt to change coverages.

Yes, individual plans would be a better solution than group plans because they are portable and allow an employee the freedom to change jobs without concerns about health coverage. Millions of people in this county have been tied to jobs they hated or were ill suited for simple because they needed the healthcare benefits that their employer offered. I personally know of a lady who is a clerk in a county office job who wants to start her own business but can't afford to do so because of the lost health insurance benefits.

I doubt Obamacare is going to do much to change this unless the exchanges are very successful into creating completion between insurers and thus driving down premiums.

 

[dblack]

The order delays the requirement that employers with over 50 employees must offer health insurance. That's it. The rest of ACA, health insurance exchanges, elimination of pre-existing conditions, lifetime maximums, extended Medicaid coverage, and other provisions continue as scheduled.

It sounds like the delay is warranted.

For political reasons for sure.

So tell me.....INDIVIDUALS are REQUIRED to comply through the Exchanges jan 1, correct?

Individuals are require to have health insurance either through their employer, government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid or through individual policies. People who do not have a health insurance plan available through their employer are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Although, I have not seen any thing published, people that work for employers that have been given the 1 year delay may be exempted from the individual mandate.

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

 

[Katzndogz]

Employers get a delay. Individuals don't. When that bite sinks its teeth in, there will be a very interesting 2014 election.

 

[Joe Steel]

If they were terminated by an employer with benefits and had to find it on their own, there would be.

Then what?

That was precisely my point in a health care system where the individual chose a provider and a plan over the employer providing it. This way it would be a part of their individual coverage when they travel from employer to employer. How often do people have to wait until they acquired a certain amount of hours first, simply because they have signed on with a new employer? I have not heard Obamacare changing THAT policy standard. Individual plans would require less paperwork, as you take it with you, unless you opt to change coverages.

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

 

[dblack]

If they were terminated by an employer with benefits and had to find it on their own, there would be.

Then what?

That was precisely my point in a health care system where the individual chose a provider and a plan over the employer providing it. This way it would be a part of their individual coverage when they travel from employer to employer. How often do people have to wait until they acquired a certain amount of hours first, simply because they have signed on with a new employer? I have not heard Obamacare changing THAT policy standard. Individual plans would require less paperwork, as you take it with you, unless you opt to change coverages.

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

 

[Flopper]

For political reasons for sure.

So tell me.....INDIVIDUALS are REQUIRED to comply through the Exchanges jan 1, correct?

Individuals are require to have health insurance either through their employer, government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid or through individual policies. People who do not have a health insurance plan available through their employer are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Although, I have not seen any thing published, people that work for employers that have been given the 1 year delay may be exempted from the individual mandate.

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

We had the option of going with single universal payer which would have simplified healthcare delivery and created a level playing field. We could have had standardized premiums and benefits. Employers would been relieved of the burden of providing health insurance. Employees would have guaranteed coverage that they could carry with them from job to job. Patients would have free choice of providers. Health insurance administration costs of 15% could be reduced to 2%. Healthcare providers would have been dealing one payer instead of thousands insurance companies, and individuals.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

 

[Flopper]

That was precisely my point in a health care system where the individual chose a provider and a plan over the employer providing it. This way it would be a part of their individual coverage when they travel from employer to employer. How often do people have to wait until they acquired a certain amount of hours first, simply because they have signed on with a new employer? I have not heard Obamacare changing THAT policy standard. Individual plans would require less paperwork, as you take it with you, unless you opt to change coverages.

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Obamacare defenders have been strangely silent on this latest development, so I wanted to devote a thread to their opinions about this latest delay. Do you still support it? Do you even know what it will do? Are you happy with all of the waivers and exceptions? Do you think delaying its implementation until after the next election is a legitimate tactic? Do you like having to rely on low information voters to win elections? Do you consider yourselves part of the "intelligentsia" which must manipulate the masses for their own good? Can you really call yourselves democrats? Hmm?

clearly those in charge know that harm it will create will be sudden and very damaging, so they will absolutly NEED as many rubber stampers in ofc that they can get.

It also gives them a year to formulate spin.

I'm certain the lie about job creation will come out, and of course they should have ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN back in line by then, so people will hear about the utterly useless shit that's the most important thing this election (see election 2012).

 

[Two Thumbs]

I hope we can fix any problems in this bill.

The solution will be; single payer total government run HC.

medicaid for all

 

[Two Thumbs]

krist, this is a right wing circle jerk if I ever seen one.


Am I happy about the delay, of course not. However, as a huge fan of any sort of change in the American health care front. Once the single payer option was booted out of the bill this was inevitable, as far as a delay goes. there will be more.

My wife and i just had our first child about a month ago. I have excellent insurance, or so I thought and let me tell you, the entire process was a nightmare. To make a long story short Medicare was almost a better option, now chew on that.

lair

and

moran

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Call Sibelius office and ask for the "Communications Liaison" known as "Greenbeard"

 

[dblack]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

In the last 30 years (closer to fifty actually) we've seen a steady increase in government intrusion on health care. It's been a disaster.

The thing is, I really have no problem with you financing your health care however you like. Just don't force other people to play along with your plans.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

I vehemently disagree. ACA is worse than 'nothing' because it doubles down on all the bad polices that have created the problem in the first place - essentially forcing all of us aboard a sinking ship.

 

[hortysir]

Individuals are require to have health insurance either through their employer, government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid or through individual policies. People who do not have a health insurance plan available through their employer are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Although, I have not seen any thing published, people that work for employers that have been given the 1 year delay may be exempted from the individual mandate.

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

We had the option of going with single universal payer which would have simplified healthcare delivery and created a level playing field. We could have had standardized premiums and benefits. Employers would been relieved of the burden of providing health insurance. Employees would have guaranteed coverage that they could carry with them from job to job. Patients would have free choice of providers. Health insurance administration costs of 15% could be reduced to 2%. Healthcare providers would have been dealing one payer instead of thousands insurance companies, and individuals.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

It will also cover people, with unnecessary coverages, that do not want or need it.
A 23 yr old male doesn't need a HC plan that covers pap smears and geriatric care

 

[Joe Steel]

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

One man's dream is another man's nightmare, eh? On this July 4th, I'm going to suggest we remain free to decide for ourselves how to manage our healthcare costs.

Relying on free markets to implement public policy is foolish. Most often the reason we need public policy to solve a problem is because free markets didn't work. That's the case with health care. Some of us just cannot afford it and the rest of us have to make sure they get it.

 

[Joe Steel]

And how well has that worked? In the last 30 years, we have seen the healthcare cost triple.

That's a big part of the problem -- in large measure because it coincides with the stagnation of middle-class incomes. Prices are rising but income isn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Individuals are require to have health insurance either through their employer, government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid or through individual policies. People who do not have a health insurance plan available through their employer are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Although, I have not seen any thing published, people that work for employers that have been given the 1 year delay may be exempted from the individual mandate.

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

We had the option of going with single universal payer which would have simplified healthcare delivery and created a level playing field. We could have had standardized premiums and benefits. Employers would been relieved of the burden of providing health insurance. Employees would have guaranteed coverage that they could carry with them from job to job. Patients would have free choice of providers. Health insurance administration costs of 15% could be reduced to 2%. Healthcare providers would have been dealing one payer instead of thousands insurance companies, and individuals.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

Because unlike car insurance or renting an apartment or buying a home, picking a health insurance policy is beyond the capability of most normal humans

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah. Everybody gets a different deal. That's the way these things work. It depends on how much influence your particular constituency has; whether they have enough clout to bargain for time, or outright exemptions. Or whatever perk will give them advantage.

ACA is better than nothing because it will provide insurance coverage for millions with limited or no coverage at all and it requires a minimum set of core benefits that every policy must contain.

I vehemently disagree. ACA is worse than 'nothing' because it doubles down on all the bad polices that have created the problem in the first place - essentially forcing all of us aboard a sinking ship.

That's the whole point of it

 

[thereisnospoon]

If they were terminated by an employer with benefits and had to find it on their own, there would be.

Then what?

That was precisely my point in a health care system where the individual chose a provider and a plan over the employer providing it. This way it would be a part of their individual coverage when they travel from employer to employer. How often do people have to wait until they acquired a certain amount of hours first, simply because they have signed on with a new employer? I have not heard Obamacare changing THAT policy standard. Individual plans would require less paperwork, as you take it with you, unless you opt to change coverages.

OK. It's a solution to problem but that's not our world and it's not likely to be in the near future.

As long as we're dreaming, though, let's dream of universal, single-payer. The government provides health insurance to everyone. Call it Medicare Part E because Everyone is covered whether employed or not, rich or poor or anything else. It never lapses, never is cancelled and covers everything. That would be the best possible solution.

In a perfect world all would receive free from out of pocket expense on demand medical care.
Any thinking individual knows this is impossible.
The money MUST come from somewhere. The Euros have come to the realization that taxation cannot come anywhere close to covering the cost. So care must be in certain ways, rationed.