ObamaCare and Healthcare.gov

[keakap]

... (every other developed country except the US).

I missed the memo.
When did every other developed country become superior to the United States? Perhaps if I knew what a developed country is: Greece? Spain? Cuba? Russia? Ireland? England? Iran?

So, it's taken us some 200+ years to make a nation, grow, succeed and prosper only to now wish we were as good as every other developed country? My how we have fallen!
Sorry, I'm just having a hard time accepting the concept of a "solution" to a free country.

[heathicus]

But about this "pre-existing conditions" thing. Am I the only one that sees this as an oxymoron? Insurance and pre-existing condition are not compatible terms. If you want financial protection against future risk you get insurance. If you want an existing health care issue paid for, you buy a service- like, say, Health Care (Not insurance).

I don't disagree with you. However, I think insurance companies are guilty of abusing the "pre-existing condition" clauses. I think there is (was) some room for reform in that area.

[keakap]

I don't disagree with you. However, I think insurance companies are guilty of abusing the "pre-existing condition" clauses. I think there is (was) some room for reform in that area.

Oh absolutely!

I never mean any criticism I level at Obama-Commie-Care to equate to the existing (now pre-existing?) health care situation in this greatest country on earth being perfect. Far from it.

For me, the communist way of doing things is always wrong. History proves that. It was tried by the Pilgrims and rejected as a complete failure for human beings.

And next to that, in addition to that, I am of the firmest belief that most or all of the shortcomings in the USA health care and health care insurance fields are the fault of bad (one way or another) government.

Imagine: if every gov't rule & regulation- all 758 billion of them- regarding Health were erased today, and the various facets of the Health Industry re-started, so to speak, from scratch.

Any kid over three could institute a computer Search (in those lists of r's & r's) for any "glitch" that appeared, and the top three, say, "solutions" re-implemented. DONE. Next problem. Instant abuse or waste corrections, as long as the Obama govt didn't write the Search site.

Free market and fair competition, coupled with pre-existing American superiority in every facet of Health, and zero govt corruption, ideologies and waste, Bingo.

No developed country in the galaxy could come close.

But that's too much to ax. So, start small by repealing and banning obamacommiecare and instituting real true honest health care reform, including tort et cetera.
What could we lose? Only one thing: govt power over people.

[heathicus]

The following is from http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/18/the-a ... t-of-2014/. Not the best analogy, but funny and still makes a point.

The Affordable CAR Act of 2014

The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The Affordable CAR Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new car by April, 2014.

These ‘affordable’ cars will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, tags, registration, fuel, maintenance, or repair costs.

This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase cars. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ car of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new car. If you purchase your car before the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ tires (does not include mounting).

In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable car,’ the cost of owning a car will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their car will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents car(s) to drive until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own car.

If you already have a car, you can keep yours (not really). If you don’t want or don’t need a car, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable car’ from a private business, you can buy a starter car from the U. S. government ‘affordable car exchange.’ Such a car will have the basic necessities and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a similar car purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax dollars will subsidize the purchase of a car from the U. S. government’s ‘affordable car exchange,’ it will appear that you are getting a good deal.

Failure to use the car will also result in fines. People living in areas with no access to roads are not exempt. Pre-existing conditions such as age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, nor lack of desire are not acceptable excuses for not using your car.

A government review board will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your car, along with how many people can ride in your car. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their car, and will also decide if your car has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories like spinning rims or a newer and more expensive car.

Those that can afford luxury cars will be required to do so … it’s only fair. The government will also decide the color for each car. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a car, they and their families can obtain cars free at the expense of tax payers. This includes lifetime maintenance and automatic adjustments for fuel charges.

Unions, bankers, and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$), Muslims and Amish are also exempt.

[heathicus]

My wife was helping a family member today try to sign up for Obamacare. They've tried in the past, but couldn't get anywhere. Well, they did today.

This family member and spouse (who is disabled) makes less than $17k a year.

Yet, they were denied Medicaid because they made too much.

Now they've been denied help from Obamacare because they make too little. In the words of the Obamacare Navigator they called, they're in "an unfortunate gray area" that is exempt from the law - and its benefits. They won't be fined for not having insurance. But they can't get any help either. Their premium would be over half of their monthly income if they bought a plan in the exchange.

So the poor are not being helped. Some in the middle class are being helped. And everybody else's premiums are skyrocketing. That's Obamacare.

[davebodner]

If this unfortunate person is in Louisiana, then you can probably blame your State government for rejecting the expanded Medicaid. The original law required all the States to expand their Medicaid eligibility. But, the Supreme Court invalidated that requirement, making it optional.

Here are the details. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... g_for.html

[heathicus]

In that debate, I'm going to side with the state. Accepting federal funds always comes with a catch - handing over more power to the federal government. We shouldn't accept federal funds with any kind of catch attached, but going even further than that, we shouldn't be sending as much money to the federal government in the first place.

Quote from the article: "The report, released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, says the irony is that Louisiana residents, like those in the other states rejecting the expansion, will be paying for its implementation in other states."

I hate that top down approach. We sent our money to the federal government, then they dole it back out to the the states that meet their demands.

I'd rather have a bottom up approach. We send our money to our local government. Local governments send a portion to the county government to fund it. County governments send a portion to the state government to fund it. State governments send a portion to the federal government to fund it. And if they don't like what the feds are doing, they withhold funding to the feds from the states. Instead of the current method of the feds taking the state's money and then deciding how much of it the states can get back based on their compliance with federal demands.

So the problem, as I see it, is not that the state rejected federal funds. It's that our state funds that could have went to the State's Medicaid program went to the federal government in the first place.

[fredsheldon]

In that debate, I'm going to side with the state. Accepting federal funds always comes with a catch - handing over more power to the federal government. We shouldn't accept federal funds with any kind of catch attached, but going even further than that, we shouldn't be sending as much money to the federal government in the first place.

Quote from the article: "The report, released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, says the irony is that Louisiana residents, like those in the other states rejecting the expansion, will be paying for its implementation in other states."

I hate that top down approach. We sent our money to the federal government, then they dole it back out to the the states that meet their demands.

I'd rather have a bottom up approach. We send our money to our local government. Local governments send a portion to the county government to fund it. County governments send a portion to the state government to fund it. State governments send a portion to the federal government to fund it. And if they don't like what the feds are doing, they withhold funding to the feds from the states. Instead of the current method of the feds taking the state's money and then deciding how much of it the states can get back based on their compliance with federal demands.

So the problem, as I see it, is not that the state rejected federal funds. It's that our state funds that could have went to the State's Medicaid program went to the federal government in the first place.

Heath, that's all well and good but it isn't helping your wife's friend and her disabled spouse. You can stand on principle all day but that won't help these poor folks. I'm sure they would rather have coverage if they had anything to say about it. I like your mix master referb.
Fred

[heathicus]

Sacrificing principle to help poor folks has done a lot more long term harm than the short term good of helping those poor folks. How much harm is Obamacare going to do, long term, in the name of helping poor folks that it's not even actually helping?

They're family, and we'll help them all we can. That's our obligation - it's not the government's obligation.

Thanks for the Mixmaster praise. I'm quite proud of it!

[dusty]

I don't understand why these folks do not have some coverage. It must be because of how their state has (mis)managed medicaid. But just how many examples of this sort of problem is there. Is this nation really going to hell in a hand basket?

This is not what we are suppose to stand for. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. One For All and All for One. The Melting Pot. The Land of Opportunity.

This is what big government does for us.

When I was growing up, a local Church would have taken these folks in until they could care for themselves - however long that might be.