Uninsured fundies and Obamacare

[August]

With no insurance coverage, my daughter was treated at a German hospital for her scolosis. The appointment time was at 8:30. Well...not really, everyone with a morning appointment showed up at 8:30. You were put in a queue based on your arrival time and then spend the morning just waiting your turn. Or maybe we were put in the bottom of the queue since we didn't have insurance. Anyway, the first time, she was not seen until 11:30. But I got smart...the next time we arrived around 7:45 and only had to wait until 10. The average American will not be happy waiting for hours for dr appointments.

I suggest you go to America and try and get treatment at an American hospital. You would be pretty damn happy with a three hour wait for a non-emergent problem like scoliosis. I don't know that they'd even be obliged to treat you.

[GolightlyGrrl]

I'm a little worried about Obamacare when it comes to securing my own insurance. I am woefully underemployed and I'm having difficulty securing a good job with benefits. I don't know how I'm going to swing getting insurance. I did fill out some survey and if it's accurate I might be able to handle it but I still have my questions. My church is having a seminar next week Sunday to help inform and navigate us through Obamacare and how it can help. Wish me luck.

[LeopardLady]

According to NPR, Scamaritan actually does count for the Obamacare requirement (or at least put them in an exempt category), as hard as that is to believe.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/28/227238887 ... n=20130928

[pattygbucks]

I suggest you go to America and try and get treatment at an American hospital. You would be pretty damn happy with a three hour wait for a non-emergent problem like scoliosis. I don't know that they'd even be obliged to treat you.

I had no real problem with the wait...but I think many Americans would be pretty frustrated. "We" (americans) don't like to wait for anything. It's more obvious to me after living in Europe how impatient American culture is.

Historically, Shriner's hospitals are great in treating scolosis with no insurance, but I think they have recently changed to bill insurance and collect co-pays if applicable.

[theresa]

Has anyone seen this? "If your state does not expand Medicaid, You will not be eligible for subsidies in the exchanges because your income is below 100% of the federal poverty level." this was taken from the Kaiser website.

Our state is not expanding Medicaid and is lowering the current income limits for parents of children by half of what it is now, starting in 2014, income limits will drop from to 200% poverty level to 100% poverty level, for children to keep their coverage, income can be up to 300% poverty level.

They are also opening Medicaid up to people without children (without a cap on enrollment), again only for people earning 100% poverty level and below. So then, if you under 100% poverty, you can qualify for Medicaid and if you are over 100%, you can apply for subsidies for premiums and reduced out of pocket costs too (not sure what the income limit is) through the Marketplace.

If you live in a state like Missouri, you are SOL, look at this:

"Currently, a parent in the state can earn no more than 18 percent of the federal poverty level to be eligible for Medicaid. That means a parent with two children can have an annual income of no more than $3,500 a year.

As the Missouri Hospital Association said in a recent report, “This precludes almost all working adults from Medicaid eligibility in Missouri.†Low-income adults without children aren’t eligible at all.

The inequities will become more severe next year, when people start purchasing health insurance on the new statewide marketplaces called for in the Affordable Care Act.

The law provides for subsidies to help people buy insurance policies. But they must have an income between the poverty level and up to four times higher. People who make less were supposed to have been covered under expanded state Medicaid programs.

But in a twist the health care law’s authors never anticipated, the U.S. Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional. Missouri and Kansas are among 27 states that so far have refused to increase their coverage thresholds.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/26/45 ... rylink=cpy"

[bananacat]

The fundies can bitch and moan all they want, but most of them will end up buying coverage and most of those won't have much trouble affording it. And I'm glad about this for two reasons:

1) Their children will be covered and most of them will get better and more consistent care because of it. If they have to buy it, they will certainly use it. Any kid getting better routine care is a plus.

2) The fundies will be less of a tax burden. For as much as they love to pat their own backs for being completely independent and never taking government assistance, almost all of them will go to an ER for catastrophic events, as they very well should. I'm glad that they have this option guaranteed to them by law; it is better than them dying. But it will be even better when their insurance plan will foot the bill instead of the taxpayers.

I predict many will complain at first and then eventually just get used to it, and after that they will actually start to appreciate it but they will never, ever make of point of saying that to counter-act their previous misguided criticisms.

[August]

But that isn't due to ACA, that's due to the insurance companies bleeding people to death to get as much income as possible so that even with being required to spend a certain percentage on actual healthcare , their bottom line profits would still be huge.

I think thre are some definite improvements with ACA, but would much rather they had gone for universal coverage similar to other industralized countries, instead of giving the insurance companies even more power.

They will eventually.

Imagine the innovation and productivity possible when every employee doesn't add $25,000 worth of insurance to your bottom line? When someone can start their own business without losing their insurance, or hire the best person for the job regardless of what insurance they can offer.

[Whipple]

As an aside, when everyone has coverage, no one will have to have car washes, raffles, or massive Internet campaigns to raise money for life-saving medical treatments. Since some of them turned out to be hoaxes, it's even better. RR would not have been able to raise as much money if Obamacare had been in place even though it is true that all universities require their students to have coverage.

[PennySycamore]

But that isn't due to ACA, that's due to the insurance companies bleeding people to death to get as much income as possible so that even with being required to spend a certain percentage on actual healthcare , their bottom line profits would still be huge.

I think thre are some definite improvements with ACA, but would much rather they had gone for universal coverage similar to other industralized countries, instead of giving the insurance companies even more power.

I just went to the doctor because I was pretty sure I had Lyme disease. (I did; the drug for it cost about $120.) I'd not had a check-up in some years because our health insurance is fairly lousy or so I thought. I'm sure of it now. I first went to an urgent care clinic run by the hospital and Blue Cross maybe paid half the bill. Same thing when I had a doctor's appointment. Yesterday, I got a bill for about $1000 dollars for lab work. Those fuckers at Blue Cross paid about 40% of my lab charges!! I am livid! I dipped into my life savings to pay charges that Blue Cross wouldn't pay last year. I can't afford to get sick and apparently I can't afford wellness care either. I think they're trying to rake in the dough while they can.

I don't remember who asked but their are some politicians who favor a single-payer system: former Governor and former presidential candidate in 2008 Howard Dean and Senator Bernie Sanders both favor Medicare for All and both men are from the great state of Vermont. There are other politicians that favor single-payer, but I don't know who right off the bat.

[lizziesmom]

Here's a link on individual mandates and the GOP.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/05/the-gop ... l-mandate/

[Stephanie66]

I agree that eventually, we will be single-payer. It might take decades, but it also might become like gay marriage and just become the way things are.

I also think that once Obamacare is completely finished, people WILL like it. They already like keeping their kids on their policies until they are 21 and not being able to hold pre-existing conditions against people. In a few years, people won't want anyone touching their Obamacare.

[GolightlyGrrl]

I just went to the doctor because I was pretty sure I had Lyme disease. (I did; the drug for it cost about $120.) I'd not had a check-up in some years because our health insurance is fairly lousy or so I thought. I'm sure of it now. I first went to an urgent care clinic run by the hospital and Blue Cross maybe paid half the bill. Same thing when I had a doctor's appointment. Yesterday, I got a bill for about $1000 dollars for lab work. Those fuckers at Blue Cross paid about 40% of my lab charges!! I am livid! I dipped into my life savings to pay charges that Blue Cross wouldn't pay last year. I can't afford to get sick and apparently I can't afford wellness care either. I think they're trying to rake in the dough while they can.

I don't remember who asked but their are some politicians who favor a single-payer system: former Governor and former presidential candidate in 2008 Howard Dean and Senator Bernie Sanders both favor Medicare for All and both men are from the great state of Vermont. There are other politicians that favor single-payer, but I don't know who right off the bat.

I am so sorry about your healthcare/insurance woes. Healthcare should be one of noble service, but corporate overlords, both hospitals and insurance companies, have fucked it in the ass with a studded dildo and no lube.

And it kills me we don't have some type of single payer health coverage in this country. Why are so many opposed to at least examining single payer and its benefits in further depth.

[JenniferJuniper]

I am so sorry about your healthcare/insurance woes. Healthcare should be one of noble service, but corporate overlords, both hospitals and insurance companies, have fucked it in the ass with a studded dildo and no lube.

And it kills me we don't have some type of single payer health coverage in this country. Why are so many opposed to at least examining single payer and its benefits in further depth.

Because "it's socialist". Which is a silly, knee-jerk response, of course, but people in this country can be so clueless and so easy for corporate interests to manipulate.

Most people don't realize how poor their insurance really is and how jacked up costs are until they seek treatment for something non-routine or get seriously ill. They walk around blissfully unaware of what could happen to their financial situation if they got cancer or an illness for which treatment required non-generic drugs.

It's all a scam and the only way to rectify what has been allowed to happen over the past couple of decades is to go single-payer. Obamacare is not the answer. I hope it's a step in the right direction but we won't be free from this situation until we rein in costs and health insurance companies are no more. And I have a hard time seeing that happening any time soon.

[GolightlyGrrl]

Because "it's socialist". Which is a silly, knee-jerk response, of course, but people in this country can be so clueless and so easy for corporate interests to manipulate.

Most people don't realize how poor their insurance really is and how jacked up costs are until they seek treatment for something non-routine or get seriously ill. They walk around blissfully unaware of what could happen to their financial situation if they got cancer or an illness for which treatment required non-generic drugs.

It's all a scam and the only way to rectify what has been allowed to happen over the past couple of decades is to go single-payer. Obamacare is not the answer. I hope it's a step in the right direction but we won't be free from this situation until we rein in costs and health insurance companies are no more. And I have a hard time seeing that happening any time soon.

Ah, yes, the "S" word. The one word the teabaggers and the fundies can't utter without going into sputtering apoplectic fits. I swear, the teabaggers and the fundies are the reason why our country can't have nice things.

And then there is the corporate hold on our healthcare. Did you know more money is put into the marketing and advertising of pharmaceuticals than actual research and development? Kind of scary, eh?

I don't know if we'll ever get single payer in my lifetime. Perhaps, my nephew and niece will see it. I can only hope.

[halfheartedheroine]

As an aside, when everyone has coverage, no one will have to have car washes, raffles, or massive Internet campaigns to raise money for life-saving medical treatments. Since some of them turned out to be hoaxes, it's even better. RR would not have been able to raise as much money if Obamacare had been in place even though it is true that all universities require their students to have coverage.

Amen to the not having to personal fundraise. When I worked at Walmart, there was a employee luncheon to raise money for a co-worker's health expenses about every two months. It was weird, though, because while the solidarity of "help our co-worker out" was good, no one ever suggested that perhaps the health insurance being offered was terrible and needed to be changed.

[FakePigtails]

We just got a note from our insurance co. stating that our specific plan won't be offered next year due to the ACA, and that they'll work with my husband's employer to put together a new plan for us. While I'm not thrilled to probably end up with a worse plan, especially given we'd like to have a baby in the next year or two, I'm okay with it because 1, costs were going up with or without the ACA, 2, getting worse before getting better was inevitable since a better solution like single payer wasn't going to happen and 3, it's better to not have the uncertainty that came with not having the exchanges and subsidies in addition to basic protections against things like lifetime limits and refusal of coverage or unaffordable costs for those with pre-existing conditions that were gained with the ACA.

Unfortunately too many people can't or refuse to see the long-term advantages or flip out at the idea of "socialism". I do feel for those who will get an overall worse outcome due to the ACA, but I also feel that the number of people now better off is much greater and that with time everyone will see benefit.

[J'ean Skirt]

That stinks. I know it's not the fault of the ACA, but "forced" reduction of benefits is just another straw on the camel's back of the workforce.

And the insurance companies are trying to screw businesses. I own a small business (and am so tiny I don't have to offer insurance, although I do because I have to in order to be competitive for workers in my industry). Our insurance company was trying to bully me into signing my renewal early so that it would go through the end of 2014 and they'd not have to offer me a compliant plan.

They had reps calling and emailing me telling me it was IMPERATIVE I sign a renewal before the end of September. MY ELIGIBILITY MAY CHANGE UNDER ACA! Yeah, they backpedaled HARD when I asked them to explain to me what, exactly, would change about my eligibility.

On top of that, the "renewal" they were offering me? Had a blank line for the price of insurance and said that Insurance Co. could change our rates whenever they felt like it.

Um. Do I Look Stupid?

The thing is, in our state under the platinum plans we would save almost $1000 a month over our current insurance. Now, I'm picky and this is *my* insurance, so we do pay a lot for a good plan. But the exchanges are a better deal for us in general. I'm waiting to see what the small business exchanges look like before making any real decisions, but those numbers aren't coming out until after October 1.

In other good news, my co-pay for happy-sexy-pills went to zero. Which did have me saying "Thank you, Mr. Obama" at the register when I picked 'em up today. :cracking-up:

[JMarie]

As an aside, when everyone has coverage, no one will have to have car washes, raffles, or massive Internet campaigns to raise money for life-saving medical treatments. Since some of them turned out to be hoaxes, it's even better. RR would not have been able to raise as much money if Obamacare had been in place even though it is true that all universities require their students to have coverage.

Tait Zimmerman wouldn't have needed to beg on the Internet if Obamacare had started.

[gravelmonkey]

What benefits does a single-payer system offer over the current system?

[FakePigtails]

What benefits does a single-payer system offer over the current system?

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... odels.html

THE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE MODEL

This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there's no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance.

The single payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices; Canada's system, for example, has negotiated such low prices from pharmaceutical companies that Americans have spurned their own drug stores to buy pills north of the border. National Health Insurance plans also control costs by limiting the medical services they will pay for, or by making patients wait to be treated.

The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries -- Taiwan and South Korea, for example -- have also adopted the NHI model.

It also simplifies administrative things, like right now there's so much paperwork and different procedures for different insurance companies that are no longer an issue under single payer.

[WonderingInWA]

My guess is that the government is pretty nervous about tomorrow. I'm sure they are going to be bombarded with phone calls and their state websites will all be crashing. I plan to log on to my state's website, but don't have high expectations.

[RosyDaisy]

From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... odels.html

It also simplifies administrative things, like right now there's so much paperwork and different procedures for different insurance companies that are no longer an issue under single payer.

The bolded is what I think a lot of Americans don't and won't like about an NHI system. I have to admit it kind of bothers me a little as well. Exactly what medical services won't be covered? Making patients wait for treatment is not really a good thing. I do agree that it would be much better than what we have now.

[FakePigtails]

The bolded is what I think a lot of Americans don't and won't like about an NHI system. I have to admit it kind of bothers me a little as well. Exactly what medical services won't be covered? Making patients wait for treatment is not really a good thing. I do agree that it would be much better than what we have now.

I agree that people won't like that but I think that'll be due to them not thinking about the times insurance companies currently do the same things here. Overall the things I've heard from Canadians about their healthcare has been overwhelmingly positive, and while waits for non-emergency surgeries have been mentioned as a problem, well right now in the US plenty of people would never receive those surgeries anyhow due to not having insurance or being denied by their insurance company.

What gets frustrating (and I don't think you're doing this, by the way) is people clinging to those things and pretending those of us for a universal system think it would be all sunshine and unicorn farts. I think every system has disadvantages, but none anywhere near what we have now.

[PennySycamore]

Americans ALREADY have to wait. At least, with national health coverage, people wouldn't have to fear going bankrupt because they get sick. Or put off going to the doctor until they're really sick.

and What FakePigtails just wrote.

[Mama Mia]

I agree that eventually, we will be single-payer. It might take decades, but it also might become like gay marriage and just become the way things are.

I also think that once Obamacare is completely finished, people WILL like it. They already like keeping their kids on their policies until they are 21 and not being able to hold pre-existing conditions against people. In a few years, people won't want anyone touching their Obamacare.

Actually it's up to age 26 that your kids can stay on your plan, and they don't have to be in school, or even be your dependent. They can be married, working, live across the country and be parents themselves and still stay on their parents plan.