Chronic hang nails, foot calluses, something.

Have you forgotten how money grubbing health insurance companies are. They will find something to make up the difference.
The ACA, Obama care, is still health insurance, administered by private health insurance companies. Nothing has changed there.

Competition is good, and it's now the law.

Even mental health has to be covered on the same basis as physical health.

The insurance companies now must pay out 80% of premiums in patient care -- not administrative expenses or profit -- or refund the excess to customers.

A great deal has changed. Insurers that don't like the new terms are free to leave.

they still have to cover it, can't drop you, and can't charge you any more for premiums than anyone else the same age and smoking status. That's why the ACA is such a big deal for so many of us who have been denied coverage (or would be if we lost our work provided employment).

But, there are some real weaknesses in ACA, but ones that can be corrected easily if the government does its job, and providers work with people who have financial issues with deductibles and copays.

And they still haven't even begun to get their hired politicians to start the process of weakening what restrictions there are to slightly impede their vampirific imperative to suck as much wealth as possible by playing the completely unnecessary role of in-between whose largest divisions still seek ways to deny actual care as often as possible or to simply place care at a deductible price that struggling workers do not have the cash to meet.

Choosing them to be in charge of our health rather than doctors makes as much sense as placing a nosferatu between your arm and your phlebotomist and paying him to dine on half the blood.

Everyone in the same age group pays the same premium for the same policy -- without regard to preexisting conditions. This is a big change from pre-Obamacare, when they could charge higher premiums for sicker people.

You need to education yourself on the ACA. Otherwise you'll keep parroting Rethug lies.

How about us old farts? Do we get it cheap too? (he crosses his fingers)

because there are only a few broad age categories.

So younger, healthier people will be helping to subsidize us, just as subsequent generations will subsidize them some day. But all age groups will benefit from finally being guaranteed the right to buy insurance even if we have preexisting conditions; also, the insurers can't drop us if we get sick; and the insurers can no longer impose annual or lifetime limits.

And for most people (for a family of four, incomes as high as $92K), the government will be subsidizing the premium to keep costs lower.

Is not a Rethug lie but a very obvious and basic truth however.

By the way, I am a little sick of nasty people that say insulting things like I'm parroting Rethug lies! Do you think it helps to educate people by insultingly accusing them of being a Retug liar with the intelligence and abilities of a bird?

Why the need to be such an insulting jerk? Is it because I never alert on jerks or because you just love playing the part of a good example of a typical Rethug during a discussion?

I heard about the risk pool here over a year ago when it was sold as a method of pooling us to somewhat reduce the outrageous costs to only sort of outrageous costs. So I picked up that Rethug Lie from someone just like you, not a Republican.

at this late date still didn't understand that preexisting conditions will no longer be a bar to receiving health insurance, and that insurers won't be able to charge more for people with health issues. It's almost as if some people WANT to find things wrong with Obamacare, to the point they're deliberately staying ignorant about it.

As of 2014 when Obamacare goes fully into effect, all customers will be charged the same rates for a particular policy without regard to gender or health status; only a person's age will determine his rate.

to recoup the cost of what they pay for services vs. what the consumer uses. They just won't charge the individual, it will be spread across the pool so that the cost is absorbed by everyone who was already paying into the pool before they utilize services.

That is the point of the individual mandate. By requiring everyone to get insurance whether they are currently healthy or not, they will be able to cover people whose illnesses cost more than their premiums.

The other source of funding will be increased taxes on the wealthy, including a new 3.8% tax on investment income over $200K.

Many people, with or without preexisting conditions, will find their premiums are lower because of the government subsidies based on income. However, younger high-income people (too high to qualify for the exchange) may pay somewhat more.

I said it would be spread. Yes, patients with pre-existing conditions will pay the same as everyone else but everyone else will be paying a higher premium to cover the costs of pre-existing conditions that haven't been paying into the pool.

God help us if the penalty for not carrying insurance is cheaper than the cost of insurance itself.

Many people will be paying reduced premiums for better coverage, because all policies must cover the "essential benefits" (like maternity care), and many people will be getting subsidies for their care based on income.

But more money will be collected overall. How? By pulling more people into the system through the individual mandate -- in general, younger, healthier people who have been taking a chance and not getting insurance at all, or insured by cheap, bare bones policies. Also, new taxes on the wealthy have been put into place to help pay for the program, as I mentioned in the previous post.

I think you're a tad hazy on math. Hundreds of dollars a month in new expenses is not less than not paying anything previously.

The new expenses will not be paid through higher premiums, but through a broader enrollment -- including younger, healthier people -- and new taxes on the wealthy.

And even some of the younger, healthier people will pay less for better policies, depending on their incomes.

My daughter is one of "such people." The premiums for my daughter (assuming no subsidies) are around $350/month (base on rates that have already been released in some states). Her bills for health care on an annual basis, every year, are around $60,000. Paying $350 a month is not "way overcharging" for her care.

I hope and pray she never has to use an insurance company to treat a serious life threatening health issue.

I know from experience they will not allow every procedure, even some that are critical and I also know that by the end of a couple years of fighting it (hopefully successfully) your family will loose all of your savings, all of your credit and wind up in debt as well.

That is how the insurance company (blue cross-top of the line) left me and my wife at the end when she died.

As a special bonus, they delayed a surgery for nine months during which time an operable tumor was able to metastasize and kill her, making the surgery unsuccessful, so you will have to excuse my lack of total exuberance in the face of the fact that these deadly vampires still get to run the show and make damn good money off our collective misery.


Still for some that would have died from not being allowed any care whatsoever that may now survive - the loss of all one's assets is of little importance in the end. I never regretted losing everything to get a chance to try to save her. I would do the same again but this rime would not have the resources to pay the weekly barrage of co-pays they require to allow you the attempt at survival, I honestly don't know how we would have been able to get very far at all without having the door vig in hand from the savings account or the credit cards.

Edited to add, I may have been mistaken about the co-pays and such taking all your families assets, considering your daughter was able to pay $60,000 a year for medical expenses and my entire yearly income was $20,000 less than that, I suppose the "better healed" among us will be just fine under insurance care. It is only your average working person's income bracket that will be so destroyed, that explains why politicians making $170,000? a year and cul de sac liberals are perfectly happy with the vampires arrangement, such people can afford to feed them half my salary along the journey and are understandably quite exuberance about how this will effect them.

The larger majority of us will just have to suck it up and take the bankruptcies stoically.

the kind of thing that happened to your family.

A couple with an income of $40K a year will receive subsidies helping to pay for health insurance, and claims that are denied can now be appealed.

http://www.drsforamerica.org/blog/aca-power-to-appeal-when-insurance-companies-deny-claims


One of the most disheartening things I’ve witnessed as a physician is insurance denials of needed medical services in the name of saving costs or the desire not to pay for services. Well, all of that has now changed based on the Affordable Care Act. If you purchase a health plan on or after March 23, 2010, you have the right to appeal a health insurance plan’s decision. According to HealthCare.Gov, if your plan denies payment after considering your appeal, the new health law permits you to have an independent review organization decide whether to uphold or overturn the plan’s decision. If your plan denies a claim, it’s obligated to:

-Provide the reason for the denial

-Inform you of your right to appeal

-Provide appeal information in your native language (if it's not English) if the plan begins on or after January 1, 2012

-Give you their decision within 72 hours after receiving your request when you're appealing the denial of a claim for urgent care

-Give you their decision within 30 days for denials of non-urgent care that you have not yet received

-Make a decision within 60 days for denials of services you have already received

-If, after an internal appeal the plan still denies your request for payment or services, you can ask for an independent external review. If your state has a Consumer Assistance Program, that program can help you with this request

-If the external reviewer overturns your insurer's denial, your insurer must give you the payments or services you requested in your claim

Although there are many benefits associated with the Affordable Care Act, the right to appeal a decision made by an insurer is empowering. You are no longer alone. You no longer feel helpless as I did when my insurer denied reimbursement for medical equipment that was mandated by my surgeon. I had attempted to complain to my Insurance Commissioner for assistance to no avail. Martin Luther King once said "Of all forms of inequality, injustice in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane." The Affordable Care Act strives to bring these injustices to an end.

The premium was high but not really much of a problem to maintain as it cost a little over one hundred a week deducted directly from my check, it was the constant "door vigs" designed to restrict people's use of care that took everything we had and still would.

I don't think you will understand until it happens to you. The denial of reality regarding the nature of insurance care is astonishing, ignore that evil nature and it will go away is not a plan.

As far as appeals, the surgery one was most telling, they appeared to have the power to stop a needed surgery because they felt the surgical plan included a specialist THEY felt did not need to be there, her surgeon helped us appeal that but they used the appeals process to string us along for nine months until we finally "won", so winning was no big gift as it took too long to matter.
The truth is it was one of the best plans with cheaper co-pays on many things than the modern plans. The co=pays have all gone up since 2005.

I had hoped someone would have actually read my post. The ACA does well in helping people get insured, and even helps pay the premium, but using it is only for those with resources or minor problems, great if you earn enough to pay for all the vigs designed to financially deter the access to care, they even admit it's purpose is to discourage people from using care with some evil theory about self restraint of over use. Like people enjoy having to be pocked proded, cut open, piosened with chemo, burned with radiation and they need to discourage people from indulging too much in these "enjoyable" pastimes.

Defense of an idea to help people that can't afford insurance now, to be able to get it is one thing and there is much to crow about there.

But cheering on the vultures that destroyed my family and are kept on to continue to do so to other families is crossing the decency line.

If you never face it, it is easy to deny, but don't tell me insurance is not evil, I know better, I've seen it first hand.

in an appeals process, as yours did with you.

In the case of a patient in need of urgent care, they have only 72 hours to make a decision on an appeal. If they rule against the patient, then it's out of their hands -- it goes to an INDEPENDENT reviewer. The independent reviewer would have no reason to delay a decision, unlike the original insurer.

There is no need for your defense of the insurance "problem" as if it has been solved. Continuing to defend these vultures is just pissing me off and showing me you are a salesman that couldn't give a rats ass about what so many of us know from experience to be true.

I am sick to death of the insensitive denials brought on by the need to pretend the problem is solved when it hasn't been, it is better for those that can't get coverage or who can't afford premiums, just stick to those positives and you won't make people like me go back to dwelling in rage about what the fucking vampires did to us and will still have the power to do to others.

Goodbye, I feel like strangleing a smiling insurance salesman now, so thanks a bunch for that, I had gotten past much of my anger over tthe last few years and it is back in full force, oh joy! What a blessing you have been.

Your anger at the ACA for what your insurer did to you -- in the absence of the ACA -- is misplaced.

every year since she was 4. She is now 23. She will ultimately require a liver transplant - perhaps more than one - and in those years her care will be between a half million and a million dollars. She is also constantly at risk for a half dozen aggressive and hard to detect cancers.

Our insurance has been provided by my employer - but I watch the bills (and often have to fight the insurance company when they mess up on paperwork) which is why I know how much her care costs. I pay the co-pays and co-insurance, which means she gets care - at $60,000 a year it would be out of reach. And, about once a year I have to fight them for treatment related decisions - and I have won every time against a half dozen insurance companies.

Being able to pay $350 a month for the quantity of care she needs once she is no longer eligible to be on my insurance is a bargain, and with the subsidies available it means that she has the opportunity to be a starving artist for a while just like all the other kids her age. The only insurance available to her with her illnesses, which she would have had to move to a few years ago but for the ACA which has allowed her to stay on my plan even though she can't be a full time student, would have cost $1500-$1800 a month. She is not able to work enough to bring in enough money to pay the bills, let alone $1500-$1800 a month on top of basic living expenses.

At $20,000 income, under the ACA, you would have been eligible for partially or fully subsidized premiums AND reduction in co-pay/co-insurance. That is why my daughter will finally have the luxury of planning for a career she might enjoy - rather than one which has to be high enough to independently pay for a transplant (or several) - or at least employer based insurance which will tie her to an employer even once it is no longer a good match. It isn't the ACA which caused your problems, and it would have helped you.

I would love to have single payer, and full access to health care for every person. That's what we should have. But I'm sick and tired of everyone acting as if this change is either nothing - or evil - just because it isn't perfect.

I never said the ACA was evil, even admitted it will help some at least get the chance to battle insurance for a chance to survive.

I just wish people will admit that insurance companies are still evil and the entire insurance industry is the root of the financial destruction that will continue to plague those that have serious health needs. The denial of the vampire in the room is astonishing, truly astonishing and will fool those without our experiences, but I have lived it and no better, and with your experiences you should damn well nbo better too and have the decency not to deny it.

and joining in with the right wing condemnation of the major improvements because they aren't perfect.

I haven't seen anyone on the left who is happy the insurance companies are still involved. No one.

What I do see are people like my family and yours who will not have to wait decades more before AT LEAST (1) being guaranteed the option of purchasing insurance (2) for which we are charged the same rates as everyone else (or lower if our incomes are lower), and (3) which is not tied to our jobs.

Those are HUGE changes - and I am sick to death of fighting both the left and the right to be sure that we don't go back to where we were. My daughter's life depends on it.

Just because they won't be among the majority of people the insurance scams will be nearly impossible to afford to use.

It is good that people that can afford the co-pays and deductibles such as yourself and rich liberals get to save money.
It is incredibly great that more very poor people will be able to get actual care as well (a liberal not conservative insurance first idea - Medicaid).

I am sick to death of fighting conservative Republicans and wealthy conservative liberals that are just fine with the majority of work for a wage people living from paycheck to paycheck not being able to afford the care because of the need of insurance to collect a premium and charge thousands a year in addition from any one that dares try to receive care. You pretend to not know such people just don't have the money to give them and can't borrow it anymore so will simply go without care! Or maybe you don't know such unwashed people and really are that clueless about the complete lack of money left over after the bills are almost but not quite payed, we can't just go to the bank like you you know.

Selfish conservatives just don't care because they will have more to spend on a second suv and a trip to wine country, the rest of us just don't matter to any of you do they?

The only thing truly good to come of this is that the very poor, will benefit.
It is Nice that well to do suburbanites that can actually afford the deductibles and co-pays save money, nice, but not the great accomplishment you think it is as it is actually bad for the majority of ever increasing working poor that will have to be fucked to save you money.

People like you are dancing on my wife's grave as far as I see it, I am glad those not in the suburbs amuse you with the fact that although they are the majority, they will only be able to afford the premiums and not the care. Keep applauding that and hating me for daring to mention how your beloved insurance companies destroyed my life, you are merely annoyed by that and prefer to just pretend it was a minor imperfection and tho the destruction of lives will continue apace, you enjoy the fun of lecturing me for mentioning it and not being happy the same things will continue to destroy millions of lives.

It is clear to me it is a class issue, and being below the suburbanites, we simply don't matter and you have the nerve to applaud that we still won't and don't matter to your class.

People in your class are incredibly selfish and uncaring, but at least our misfortune can bring a smile to your face.

just because the law doesn't fix everything for everyone immediately. After decades of not being able to make any progress at all. The last significant reform was HIPAA, which allowed people who already had health insurance to keep the insurance at whatever rate the insurance companies wanted to charge. The one before that was COBRA - a similar fix, again for people who already had insurance through a job, limited to those who had jobs with large employers.

This reform helps those who need it most - the poor, and those who have pre-existing conditions who have not been able to obtain access to health care except by paying full price for whatever the doctors bill.

Being thrilled at greater access to care for those for whom it has been farthest out of reach has absolutely nothing to do with class, loving insurance companies, or being clueless about poverty. It has to do with sending out what lifeboats there are even though there aren't enough for everyone yet. And feel free to work your tail off to get single payer passed, but stop telling my daughter, and others with chronic illnesses, or single people who happen to be poor and not currently eligible for Medicaid, that they have reject these major improvements just because it was impossible to get a perfect solution after decades of trying.

What a relief this will be to so many millions. . . .

Although I am currently pissed about the one year extension on merging the annual out of pocket cap for all expenses. I'm switching jobs, and my new employer excludes prescription coverage from the cap - which will add ~$5000 to expenses for the next year which I hadn't counted on. I talked them into a small increase in their offer, which (over two years) will almost cover the extra expenses. But we'll really have to watch our pennies until 1/1/2015.

that investigating people for fraud counts as "care" in the "80% of funds must go into care" law, don't you?

I actually don't know which part of the scale that falls into, and didn't find it on a quick search.

But - regardless of where it falls, investigating for fraud based on lying about pre-existing conditions is a thing of the past since there are no questions about pre-existing conditions which can have any impact on coverage or how much they pay on your claims.

... to the MediCare program, and I'm all for it. I assume it will be for the ACA as well, and I'm all for it.

So if you enter "What are the symptoms of ___ cancer?" into Google, a guy at Booz Allen Hamilton, working on behalf of the NSA, won't sell that information to health insurance companies so they can decide what kind of a risk you are and raise your premiums.

Can't happen here, right?

Your age, your income and whether you smoke or not. Your income will determine your tax exemption for your policy.

Unfortunately, a lot of anti-ACA propaganda is out there, and a lot of people have fallen for it, including many here, as this thread demonstrates.

You are repeating a right wing blogger who was quoting a piece of propaganda written by the infamous Betsy McCaughey, the author of “Beating Obamacare.” 

Why would you cite to that trash on DU and spread such lies about the ACA?

The blog you cite is a litany of right wing lies.

This is not Libertarian Underground. Peddle your propaganda elsewhere.

Fuck Ron Paul. Fuck Rand Paul.

They are Republicons who want to to smoke and get laid. In other words, its a clever way to entice naive youth into the conservative fold for life.

That is why Romney vetoed everything but the mandate part from Romneycare and the Massachusetts legislature had to override his veto.

Obamacare covers 30 million Americans that did not have health insurance before. It saves 45,000 American lives each year. If McCain passed the same law, people would approve, but McCain didn't and said he wouldn't as President. That's one of the reasons he lost the election.

As noted elsewhere on DU (you're new, maybe you have yet to catch up):

Compare it to the MA health care law, which was a product of the MA Democratic legislature. Democrats made significant changes to Mitt Romney's proposal. In fact, Romney opposed those changes, and upon signing the bill into law, vetoed them. Romney's vetoes were overturned by the legislature.


In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance reform bills. The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers.

On April 12, 2006, Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation. Romney vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment. Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid. The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Legislation


Here's how the veto was reported:


Mitt Romney health care vetoes overturned by Massachusetts House (Mitt Romney Archive, 2006)

By The Republican Newsroom

This story from The Republican’s archive is part of our look back at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s years in Massachusetts politics: as Senate candidate, gubernatorial candidate and governor. It was published on April 26, 2006.

By The Associated Press

BOSTON — Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. W. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly yesterday to overturn his vetoes to the state's landmark health-care law, including the controversial $295 fee on businesses that don't offer insurance.

The predominantly Democratic House broke from debate of the state budget to begin the override process, first voting to restore a portion of the law guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.

The House overrides had been expected, and Senate President Robert Travaglini said yesterday that he expects the Senate will override all eight of Romney's vetoes. The Republican governor's spokesman said the differences were not essential to the larger goal of health care coverage.

- more -

http://www.masslive.com/mitt-romney-archive/index.ssf/2012/04/gov_mitt_romney_health_care_ve.html

Obamacare was the biggest expansion of Medicaid since the program was established.

Not only that, the health care law increased the Medicaid drug rebate percentage to 23.1 percent.

http://www.medicaid.gov/AffordableCareAct/Timeline/Timeline.html

The President has proposed the same rate for Medicare (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670043 ), which would save even more than the Senate proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725266), $164 billion to $141 billion, respectively.

The RW hate Medicaid, and would never expand it.


The Benefits Of Medicaid Expansion: A Reply To Heritage’s Misleading Use Of Our Work

by Stan Dorn Stan Dorn

In a publication released in numerous states as well as a JAMA Forum article and a recent list of ten supposed “myths” about Medicaid expansion, the Heritage Foundation repeatedly cites our paper for the proposition that “40 of 50 states are projected to see increases in costs due to the Medicaid expansion,” and that expansion would force such states “to dig deep into their already overstretched budgets.” Even in the 10 remaining states, according to Heritage, the budget gains we projected to result from expansion were speculative and uncertain, since they supposedly relied on states cutting payments for hospital uncompensated care.

These claims distort our work. We identified 10 states in which Medicaid expansion would yield net savings based on just one factor—namely, unusually generous prior Medicaid coverage, for which states could claim enhanced federal matching funds. The modest additional gains resulting from uncompensated care savings did not tip any state from the red into the black.

<...>

For example, a report one of us prepared along with colleagues in Ohio found that, while a Medicaid expansion would increase that state’s Medicaid costs by about $2.5 billion from 2014 through 2022, it would also save Ohio $1.5 billion by reducing state spending on current programs in favor of the largely federally financed expansion. Such programs cover so-called “medically needy” adults, women with breast and cervical cancer, and adults who are waiting for disability determinations. At the same time, expansion would increase state revenue by as much as $2.8 billion, in part because of the economic activity galvanized by more than $31 billion in new federal Medicaid funds, but also because of prescription drug rebates and taxes on Medicaid managed care premiums. The overall result: at least $1.8 billion in net state budget gains.

We also found that Medicaid expansion would create more than 27,000 Ohio jobs, reduce the number of uninsured by more than 450,000, cut health costs for employers and residents by $285 million and $1.1 billion, respectively, and lessen budget shortfalls facing Ohio’s counties. Analysts in states like New Mexico, Oregon, Michigan, and Virginia similarly concluded that Medicaid expansion would yield state savings on high-risk pools, public employee coverage, and mental health care and substance abuse services for the poor uninsured. In fact, every comprehensive fiscal analysis of which we are aware has found that Medicaid expansion yields net state budget gains...Medicaid is far from a perfect program. In particular, spending constraints cause states to limit payments to Medicaid providers, reducing their willingness to serve Medicaid patients. That said, Medicaid expansion would improve access to care for millions of uninsured—including poor veterans and their families; create thousands of new jobs; provide significant revenue to hospitals facing significant Medicare cuts; lower health care costs for employers and consumers; provide fiscal relief to localities; and in substantially more than 10 states—perhaps even most states—yield net budget gains that could be reinvested in education, transportation, tax cuts or other priorities. Why would state leaders focused on achieving practical results for their constituents reject a policy that produces such benefits?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/05/03/the-benefits-of-medicaid-expansion-a-reply-to-heritages-misleading-use-of-our-work/


Krugman:


I Have Seen The Future, And It Is Medicaid

One of the papers at Brookings was an attempt at prognosticating the future of health care costs — for what it’s worth, their best guess was slightly below CBO’s, so it was consistent with CBO’s relatively not-scary long-term fiscal forecasts. But what struck me most was this chart, showing cost growth in different forms of health insurance:

<...>

That flat red line at the bottom is Medicaid.

Everyone who’s serious about the budget realizes that to the extent we do have a long-run fiscal problem — which we do, although it’s far from apocalyptic — it’s mainly about health care costs. And then there’s much wringing of hands about how nobody knows how to control health costs, so maybe we should just give people vouchers, and if they still can’t afford insurance, too bad.

Meanwhile, we have ample evidence that we do know how to control health costs. Every other advanced country does it better than we do — and Medicaid does it far better than private insurance, and better than Medicare too. It does it by being willing to say no, which lets it extract lower prices and refuse some low-payoff medical procedures.

Ah, but you say, Medicaid patients have trouble finding doctors who’ll take them. Yes, sometimes, although it’s a greatly exaggerated issue...But the problems of access, such as they are, would largely go away if most of the health insurance system were run like Medicaid, since doctors wouldn’t have so many patients able and willing to pay more. And as for complaints about reduced choice, let’s think about this for a moment. First you say that our health cost problems are so severe that we must abandon any notion that Americans are entitled to necessary care, and go over to a voucher system that would leave many Americans out in the cold. Then, informed that we can actually control costs pretty well, while maintaining a universal guarantee, by slightly reducing choice and convenience, you declare this an unconscionable horror.

- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-is-medicaid

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023707846

More on Medicaid and Obamacare:


Health Law Offers Dental Coverage Guarantee For Some Children

By Michelle Andrews

Tooth decay is the most common chronic health problem in children. By the time they enter kindergarten, more than a quarter of kids have decay in their baby teeth. The problem worsens with age, and nearly 68 percent of people age 16 to 19 have decay in their permanent teeth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act requires that individual and small-group health plans sold both on the state-based health insurance exchanges and outside them on the private market cover pediatric dental services. However, plans that have grandfathered status under the law are not required to offer this coverage.

<...>

The changes in the health law apply specifically to children who get coverage through private plans. Dental services are already part of the benefit package for children covered by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income people. But many eligible kids aren't enrolled, and even if they are, their parents often run into hurdles finding dentists who speak their language and are willing to accept Medicaid payments.

<...>

Under the health-care law, pediatric dental health coverage sold on the exchanges cannot have annual or lifetime limits on coverage.

- more -

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/2013/011513-Michelle-Andrews-on-kids-dental-care-coverage.aspx


http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3715400

.... at the little bridge-dweller. Vindication.

Apparently, whatever the jury results were for the first alert immediately pop up for all subsequent alerts. However, the repeated alerts, due to the obviously wrong decision of the original jury, catches the attention of MIR.

Why?

Health insurance makes money.

Health care costs money.

That's why heath insurance makes money by not providing heath care.

I say kick out the middle man and let insurance companies go back to doing what they were doing before.

Screwing widows out of their late husband's life insurance by claiming his death isn't covered.

For-profit health insurance is perhaps the dumbest idea in history.

POOR countries offer free health care so you just have to ask, "WTF???"

Of course the ANSWER is we are brainwashed in this country into thinking EVERYTHING of value is FOR SALE.

That's how you end up with someone walking through a wilderness and seeing a valley laid out before them looking like the Garden of Eden or Shanghai-La and the first thought is, "I have GOT to buy this and sell timeshares."

I'm going to point out that corporate invasion of privacy does not start, nor does it end, with health insurance. I'm also going to point out that the foundational problem with "Obamacare" is just that: it's a corporate, a private for-profit health insurance mandate.

Moving on to the issue of pre-existing conditions, I have to admit that I don't know the answers for my questions, but I do have questions. Or, more accurately, concerns.

I know that Obamacare does not benefit me, because I get my insurance from my employer, who pays part of the premium. The lowest premium, for the cheapest plan, is about $900 a year. That's not changing. If I refuse my employer's offerings to play on the exchange, they don't pay for part of the premium, and it ends up costing me more, because I have to pay the whole thing out of pocket.

This year, when I had to sign up for the health plan of choice offered by my employer, we were encouraged to sign up for a program called "healthy futures," which, THIS YEAR, is voluntary. We were told, happily, that if we didn't choose to participate THIS YEAR, that there would be no penalty! Isn't that great?

The program involves a health assessment to determine risks, and participation in at least 2 programs to address identified risks, reporting progress/results back to the insurance company.

And it's voluntary THIS YEAR.

I assumed this had something to do with the ACA; an insurance company response to the "no pre-existing conditions" thing.

It also doesn't appear to be an end to the corporate invasion of medical privacy.

I see your standpoint however; I'm looking at a different one.

D.C. awards Obamacare IT work to offshore outsourcer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667382

privacy is (or isn't).

It ends U.S. Corporation Privacy issues but puts all of your information offshore and in the trusting hands of the lowest-bid contractor, thus putting all your data up for sale direct from India.

And again, pushing more jobs offshore, funded by our tax dollars.

High-Five, Obama and Congress... Great Job!