Why your ACA plan from last year might not be the best one for you this year,

[pnwmom]

if you get a subsidy. And why, if you get a notice that your premium is going up, you should check out the other options on your exchange.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/health-care-act-enrollment.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Most people who have already signed up can have their plans automatically renewed if they take no action. But the Obama administration is encouraging them to shop around because with all the new options, they may find a better deal. Many low- and moderate-income people who qualified for federal subsidies, to decrease the cost of their premiums, could see the value of those subsidies drop if they keep the same plan. That is because the price of the “benchmark” plan, which the subsidies are pegged to, has dropped in many markets.

[misterhighwasted]

1. Last year's plan was a very good one. BUT the $100 increase this year was the tipping point for me.

Guess I will either pay over 900 a month for a $2000 deductable policy or look for another one.
So far I have found nothing that compares last years policy. In benefit nor price.
I get zero subsidy.
I live in Texas, & I do not qualify for anything.
I am being forced to buy Ins, which I would like to do, but the premium is too much, & CIGNA informed me that last years policy was no longer available, but I could get something similar for $100 a month more.
For F'ing Sakes..
Feel like I'm on the ship of fools maneuvering through this Ins mess.
UGH!

[pnwmom]

2. I hope that when the Federal exchange opens up you find something better there.

Good luck!

[misterhighwasted]

7. Thank you.

[misterhighwasted]

3. Forced, as in buy or pay the fine. Yet Ins Co's can drop, increase $$, or deny or whatever

I have spent the entire day searching through all the fine print of each reasonable priced policy I can afford & I feel like my freakin head is about to explode.
Twisted effing mess

[pnwmom]

13. Insurance companies can no longer drop their customers except for non-payment.

Before the ACA they could drop them as soon as they got sick.

[Glitterati]

15. But they CAN drop the plans

You like the plan you've got this year? Well, good luck finding it again next year!

They can drop the cheapest and best plans for folks like hot potatoes. Not a damned thing in law prevents them from doing that.

[Kali]

28. they could always do that

that is not anything new

[Glitterati]

31. You're right, it's not. But FORCING us to deal with it is

Cause, you know, you pay penalties if you can't find an affordable insurance plan after they cancel the only one your Doctor took.

Heck, you pay penalties that are MORE than the insurance and don't even get a "thank you, ma'am" for the fucking you get in the process.

[Kali]

36. the penalty is more than the insurance?

hmmmm that doesn't seem to make sense

[Glitterati]

37. Uhhh, yeah, it would be for me

WAY more than the insurance I paid for this year.

[Kali]

44. then buy the insurance???

if the insurance is less than the fine, then get the insurance

what is the fine? I thought it was like $100. you paid less than that for insurance?

[Glitterati]

45. LOL, OK.

shaking my head.

[Kali]

62. OK, me too.

if you don't want to answer or don't know I am fine with that, but you seem to have made up your mind about something and it seems like there is information missing.

I see the fines will actually be more than I thought, since they go up annually - of course as with any new program that could change too if enough people complain. - like how they extended the sign-up deadline last spring, so maybe it won't be that bad. Or maybe your plan won't get dropped or maybe it will actually be something better. Who knows? I just seems like you are only seeing certain bad "facts" and drawing conclusions without the full information.

[BlindTiresias]

50. Regarding the fine

"The fee in 2015

If you don’t have coverage in 2015, you’ll pay the higher of these two amounts:

2% of your yearly household income. (Only the amount of income above the tax filing threshold, about $10,000 for an individual, is used to calculate the penalty.) The maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.
$325 per person for the year ($162.50 per child under 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $975.

The fee for not having coverage in 2014

If you didn’t have coverage in 2014, you’ll pay one of these two amounts when you file your 2014 federal tax return:

1% of your yearly household income. (Only the amount of income above the tax filing threshold, about $10,000 for an individual, is used to calculate the penalty.) The maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.

$95 per person for the year ($47.50 per child under 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $285.

The fee after 2015

The penalty increases every year. In 2016 it’s 2.5% of income or $695 per person. After that it's adjusted for inflation."

[Kali]

51. ah, thanks.

I remembered it right but didn't realize it was going up.

[Raine1967]

79. I said this and some more information in post #70.

I think this important information will be ignored. Damn shame to see such misinformation being posted.

Even sadder when people are trying to help a person out and that help is being ignored.

[Raine1967]

70. Are you really saying the penalty would be more than you insurance?

Here is some information on the mandate and the penalty.

Q. I don't have health insurance. Will I have to get it, and what happens if I don't?

A: Under the legislation, most Americans will have to have insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The penalty would start at $95, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. This is the individual limit; families have a limit of $2,085 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Some people can be exempted from the insurance requirement, called an individual mandate, because of financial hardship or religious beliefs or if they are American Indians, for example.

I thought I saw you say something different in another OP that you started.

Also, there is this for those saying they they are being dragged down by the mandate. 2% of the population. That is it. the ACA always gave a ton of reasons to opt out.

[jwirr]

52. A friend of mine kept her old plan that allowed because so many people yelled about losing thier

insurance. Now they have sent her a letter saying they are going broke and leaving the exchange. What can she do? She is in MN so she has access to an exchange but does not know what to do. She thinks she is going to have to pay $900 a month until the exchange opens up again.

Even better than telling me what she can do would be to tell me who she can talk to that can help.

[Glitterati]

54. Does she have access to a Navigator?

that's her best bet at this point.

[jwirr]

58. I don't know. I assume someone in her family will. Tell me how to use it for this problem.

[Glitterati]

63. She needs to sit down and talk to a Navigator.

Just make an appointment with them, take in the paper work and listen for what her options are.

The Navigators know all the ins and outs of this law and how to best serve the folks they are talking to. They sell nothing, they push nothing. Just the facts. An insurance agent, on the other hand, would only steer her to the products they have in their portfolio and toward the most expensive one they offer.

[jwirr]

74. Okay, I really feel silly for asking about this. I think my granddaughter is a Navigator for Native

American tribes. Since the beginning she has been flying all over the country to visit with tribal leaders to help them set up their ACA programs. She will not be able to help this lady because her specialty is tribal law but I am willing to bet she will know who to contact.

Thank you.

[Glitterati]

78. There you go!

Perfect solution. I'm sure she will be able to find the correct Navigator for your family member.

[jeff47]

85. She's getting bad information.

Her old insurance, and it's old rate, are still in effect until January.

Also, the exchange "opens up" tomorrow. That will provide a list of plans that start in January. She has to sign up by December 15th for everything to be ready by January 1st. I'd recommend having her aim to be signed up by December 1st so there's time for a paperwork screw-up.

As for someone she can talk to, that will be much easier to find tomorrow when the exchanges open.

[jwirr]

89. Thank you. I will pass this information on to her. She thought it would be months that she would not

have any insurance.

[Glitterati]

91. Just got this via email

https://localhelp.healthcare.gov/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_campaign=openenrollment&utm_content=11_14_14

That's for looking up a local Navigator.

[Sunlei]

103. ??? the bronze tier insurance are totally FREE for you (if you make less than about 25k)

[Glitterati]

109. You do realize Bronze plans aren't worth the paper they are written on, correct?

they're garbage.

[Sunlei]

112. whats garbage about INSURANCE? max out of pocket is 6k instead of LOSS of everything.

[Glitterati]

132. Filing bankruptcy is WAY cheaper than 6K

and you lose nothing.

[Sunlei]

136. after you lose your home, savings & everything to pay medical bills!

The insurance is totally free to you at some plans and you don't have to use it.

Consider it a disaster plan if god forbid you develop cancer or have a serious accident.

[Glitterati]

137. LOL, 'fraid not

[Sunlei]

142. you'd rather lose everything, be sick and broke with 200k in medical bills instead of

'free insurance' based on YOUR IRS report.

what's your zipcode and how much do you make a year?- enter it here- https://www.healthcare.gov/see-plans/

[Glitterati]

143. Sorry, been down this road yesterday, been called all kinds of names

and I ain't going down it again just to be called a liar a few more times.

Bankruptcy wipes out your medical bills, retains your home and your vehicles and you owe NOTHING, much less 200K

But, you believe whatever you want to believe.

Bronze plans aren't worth the paper they are written on.

[JimDandy]

144. Free plan is good, then, for the other 9 years you're in bankruptcy.

Can only declare bankruptcy once every 10 years.

Both bankruptcy and free bronze plans are useful for catastrophic events.

[heather blossom]

60. Blame the Governor

Perry refused to participate in the Medicaid expansion so we are stuck with higher premiums and less options.

[still_one]

177. Sure, but how does that help him, he is still without insurance because he can't afford it

and unless the law is modified to accommodate this, which doesn't look likely with the midterm results, and with the potential of the SC getting rid of any federal subsidies, it will only get worse for folks like him.

[still_one]

176. Texas is one of the states that did everything to see that the ACA would fail, so it is not

surprising the many folks in Texas will have the same issues you are having.

California will not.

If you cannot afford the insurance, and if your insurance premiums would exceed 8% of your income you are excluded from the mandate. Unfortunately, that means you are without insurance, but at least you won't be penalized for not having it. Even if you don't qualify for the 8% rule, and you don't buy insurance, the penalty is not significant, however, you are still without insurance.

[Glitterati]

4. Just keep in mind, changing plans most likely means changing doctors as well

So, fun, fun, fun, we get to make the Dr. switcheroo an annual game.

Such amazing fun and thrills. Assuming you can find a Doctor who TAKES the plan you chose.........

[pnwmom]

6. "most likely" is your opinion, not fact. Our doctor takes seven plans. My son's doctor

takes several also.

[Glitterati]

11. And MY doctor takes ONE

Most doctors in this community refuse to participate in ACA at all.

Walk a mile in someone else's shoes for a few minutes.

[pnwmom]

17. Do you have a link for your claim

that "most doctors in this community refuse to participate in ACA at all"? Or did you just make it up?

That seems extremely unlikely, because that means they would have to be rejecting most major health insurers in your area.

[Glitterati]

19. Hey, sorry, no link. But you can call every doctor in the phone book if you'd like

Please, go ahead.

I live in a VERY well to do community. Most doctors here have no problem not accepting insurance.

[Kali]

30. that would be another "problem" that existed prior to ACA

seems like you are trying to blame the ACA for things that have existed prior to enactment.

[Glitterati]

35. No blame, just laying out the FACTS

Some of us are dealing with.

Shall I just let you sugar coat it?

Do you find facts so troublesome?

[Kali]

41. it seems to me you are assuming a relationship between some random "facts"

that does not really exist

water is wet, that is a fact but it doesn't have much to do with Obamacare
doctors in wealthy locations not taking insurance doesn't seem to have anything to do with it either

[Glitterati]

42. It most certainly DOES

It means there is ONE Doctor who takes ANY ACA plans at all, and if you don't have that plan, you don't have insurance. You're just paying for a fancy plastic card you can't use.

See how simple that is?

[pnwmom]

152. You're just making that fact up. No link but to your own personal opinion. n/t

[Glitterati]

155. Yada yada yada yada yada

yawn......

[B2G]

43. Uh, yeah, it does

ALOT of doctors don't accept ACA policies because of the reimbursement rates. And it stands to reason that those practicing in affluent areas can do so with abandon.

Do a little research.

[Kali]

47. poster said the doctors in the area don't take ANY insurance

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

How can they tell if it is ACA subsidized? aren't the policies the same they sell at full price to whoever?

edit - wasn't the OP, changed subject line

[pnwmom]

154. Exactly. They can't tell. It will just be a policy from Premara or Humana or whatever,

policies most doctors already take.

[Autumn]

182. My Humana card has a code on it that means Silver... On Exchange

You are wrong. The doctors offices know exactly who get their insurance through the exchange.

My doctors wife is his receptionist, we talked about it and she showed me on my card. She is a big supporter of the ACA

[pnwmom]

183. It must vary by state then because my son's card doesn't.

It looks just like ours, which wasn't from the ACA.

But why would a doctor deny a card that was subsidized by the ACA, if it was from an insurer that s/he took anyway?

[still_one]

191. There absolutely are doctors who will not accept the ACA. Same with Medicare, there are doctors who

will not accept Medicare. Texas for instance is notorious for that. However, even in Texas most of the large clinics and practices do accept Medicare. Not sure about the ACA though

[Glitterati]

48. These folks don't live in rural areas

where medical services are limited to begin with, and VERY limited for the poor.

My town is VERY affluent, yet we're on the list of UNDER SEVERED because there's only ONE GP who will take ACA, Medicaid or Medicare.

[Kali]

55. not sure who you mean by "these" folks, but I am pretty sure

I qualify for rural. LOL

20 miles from the nearest town.

[B2G]

61. You aren't getting what's being said here.

Are you reading the posts?

[Kali]

68. actually, I haven't managed to get out of this subthread yet, LOL

keep trying to read the whole thing then getting a reply so go there instead. and now I need to take off for a while. back later

[B2G]

73. Come back coherent. nt

[Kali]

82. wow, that was rude

[B2G]

93. Not really. You aren't reading replies

Yet you continue to post snark.

Glitterati is being eviscerated here and it pisses me off. If I directed that at you disproportionately, I apologize. This sub-thread was about how/why some doctors don't accept ACA plans. It was answered, yet you continue to say it hasn't been explained.

[Kali]

161. I am back and I have also seen the other thread.

I see where some of the hostilities are coming from. I didn't know that earlier. This is a continuation of a typical gd flame war and I am going to step away from it as I know from experience there is no point. I do want to say from my perspective, it would seem Glitterati has lumped a number of people who were trying to help or just converse with a group who are less than sympathetic to her plight. She is not being eviscerated so much as she is engaging in a flamefest. She is responding to everybody who isn't in complete agreement or just asks some clarifying questionsas if they were all attacking her personally (and yes I see that a few are, but not all by a long shot). She has threatened to leave and not continue this, yet here she is flaming on a whole day later in a different thread (an maybe more, I am not going to go look) she refuses to listen to any advise and while expecting everybody to know what she thinks she knows, derides any advice or even questions posed in order to try and help her.

I am out.

[pnwmom]

184. kali gets it and is asking logical questions.

The illogic is coming from the other side.

[pnwmom]

157. Link please. If you've read this somewhere, there must be a link about the horrible situation

in your wealthy town.

Just google "name of town" plus "ACA" and "Medicare."

Now you've given yourself away though, pretending that in a wealthy town there's only one physician willing to take Medicare, too. So how do you think single-payer or Medicare-for-all would ever help you? That single physician would never be able to handle the new workload!

[Glitterati]

158. Done

finished.

It doesn't matter, especially with YOU. One could offer proof all day long to dispel your lies and innuendo and you still repeat them over and over and over and over.

Any doubt? See the e-cig threads..............plain as day.

Yawn.........

[pnwmom]

159. You haven't even attempted to offer any proof about any doctor in your town.

But now that you mention it . . . it would be a good idea to stop smoking e-cigs and put that $100 a month toward health insurance. You'll be healthier and save money.

[Glitterati]

160. I don't intend to

it's a waste of time and effort with you.

No matter what proof is offered, you continue to lie.

[pnwmom]

153. Do you have a link for the claim you are making? Most ACA insurers are the same major insurers

that almost all doctors routinely take, even in wealthy areas. What doctors are less likely to take is Medicaid, but this discussion isn't about Medicaid.

[still_one]

181. Actually if you are under an HMO ACA verses a PPO ACA, some HMOs could very well exclude

some doctors from their contracts.

HMO's are considerably less expensive the PPOs, and if a person cannot afford PPO, then they are left with an HMO. If there doctor is in an HMO where they cannot afford the premium, and the other HMO where they can afford the premium is contracted with that doctor they have very little choice except to try and find another doctor under that affordable plan. If that doctor is a specialist, it can be quite difficult

[pnwmom]

185. It has always been true that you can belong to one insurer's plan and not be able to use doctors

from another plan, whether it's an HMO or not.

[still_one]

186. No PPO you can go out of the network. They might have more out of

Pocket expense but with a PPo you can go anywhere, that is its purpose

[pnwmom]

187. A closed HMO plan might not allow its doctors to see patients out of network. n/t

[still_one]

190. That is what distinguishes an HMO from a PPO. The ACA has both types. A PPO you can definitely see

a doctor out of the preferred providers. You usually have to pay a little more out of pocket expenses, but they will cover some of the charges. An HMO you must stay within the network unless it is an emergency situation, and then once stabilized you need to go back to a network provider.

Medicare supplemental plans have something similar. If you choose a supplemental plan F or G for example, you can go anywhere that accepts Medicare. For the Medicare advantage plans you are restricted to remain in the network.

[pnwmom]

192. The point is this situation has nothing to do with the ACA. It's always been the case with HMO's. n/

[pnwmom]

151. No, you just laid out your completely unsupported personal opinion

about "most doctors." That is anything but a fact.

[Glitterati]

156. Yada yada yada yada yada

yawn......

your hysteria is really boring.

[pnwmom]

150. I'm not the one making a general claim about most doctors. You are. And you just made it up. n/t

[Glitterati]

162. Yet more lies

I never said MOST doctors. I said MY doctor. I said MY town. I said MY environment.

So, once again, it is YOU who is making shit up. Not I.

[pnwmom]

163. I guess someone's impersonating you again. Check out post 11.

Where the person pretending to be you said:

"Most doctors in this community refuse to participate in ACA at all."

And post 48, where this same impersonator said:

"My town is VERY affluent, yet we're on the list of UNDER SEVERED because there's only ONE GP who will take ACA, Medicaid or Medicare."

Wow. Only one GP who will take ACA, Medicaid, or Medicare. What an unusual town. I'm sure there's been a lot of publicity about this horrible situation. But you can't provide a single link. Sorry -- I meant, that impersonator, since you never said that, right?

[Glitterati]

164. IN THIS COMMUNITY

THIS COMMUNITY.

Did you miss that?

Once again, making up lies and false facts out of whole cloth when the proof is in your face.

[pnwmom]

165. But you won't tell us the name of the community, and you won't provide any links.

And you even said: "My town is VERY affluent, yet we're on the list of UNDER SEVERED because there's only ONE GP who will take ACA, Medicaid or Medicare." (post 48)

Wow. Only one GP who will take ACA, Medicaid, or Medicare. What an unusual town. I'm sure there's been a lot of publicity about this horrible situation. So where's the link?

Or at least, the name of this very special town?

And can you explain how Medicare-for-all or single-payer will work in a town where no GP's take Medicare?

[pnwmom]

167. The only way to know if your incredible story is true is for you to provide a link.

It makes no sense because a doctor who accepts a major insurer can't tell if that insurer's patient is getting a subsidy. All they know is that the person has an insurance card. The insurance cards aren't identified as ACA.

But if it is true about your town, then it must be true of other wealthy areas, too. So just link to an article about ANY town where most doctors won't accept Medicare, Medicaid, or the ACA. I can't find any, but I'm not the one making the claim that there is such a town -- you are.

[Glitterati]

169. Awwww!

Limited access

Regardless of their preference for a doctor who shares their background, many black, Hispanic, Native American and rural Americans lack convenient access to any doctor at all.

In Georgia, physicians cluster around metro Atlanta but are scarce in rural areas. About half of the state’s doctors practice in a 60-mile radius of Atlanta. The remaining half cover the rest of the state, said Pam Reynolds, director of the Southwest Georgia Area Health Education Center, whose Pathways program helps rural med school applicants compete with their metro Atlanta counterparts.

In 2005, a U.S. government analysis showed that more than 15% of Georgians lived in medically underserved areas, or MUAs, where residents have higher rates of undiagnosed and chronic diseases – and worse health in general – than people who have easier access to doctors.

Ironically, the southwest Atlanta neighborhood around Morehouse School of Medicine – an institution dedicated to providing equal care for all – is considered an MUA.

One way to lighten the burden of poor health would be to educate more doctors who want to practice where people need them. Because medical students who come from underserved communities are most likely to go back and practice in them, schools are competing to enroll them.
- See more at: http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2011/03/training-minority-doctors-huge-priority-georgia/#sthash.ypm1dzvt.dpuf

[pnwmom]

170. Thanks. But that article doesn't support your point, because nowhere in that long article

does it mention a problem of doctors refusing to honor Medicaid, Medicare, or the ACA.

We have long had a problem with areas with not enough doctors,and the ACA contains some money for training more primary care doctors for this reason. So the ACA is a step forward on this issue, too.

[Glitterati]

171. And more........

http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/TIA_PhysicianShortage_Final_screen.pdf

Not that the TRUTH matters to you.

[uppityperson]

202. Huh, you reply to yourself "Not that the TRUTH matters to you"?

[still_one]

193. I think the question they want to know is if your a expanded Medicaid, and setup their own exchanges

[heather blossom]

64. Question

How do the doctors know that you purchased your insurance thru the ACA- Coverage is placed thru all the major insurance carriers such as Aetna, Blue Cross, CIGNA, etc.

[Glitterati]

69. Because of several reasons......starting with......

the negotiated reimbursement rate the doctor has to agree to.

2. My insurance card says so.

3. The plan ON my insurance card is only OFFERED through ACA.

[heather blossom]

81. Question

Then your doctor has a PPO agreement with your carrier if he accepts the negotiated rate. If he/she were not bound by the PPO contract then he could refuse to see you, refuse to accept your insurance and make you pay in full for each visit or charge you the difference between the negotiated rate and his normal rate.

[Glitterati]

83. I don't see where there was a question in there, but.......

I'm happy to share what would happen if I were uninsured again.

I would go back to the same situation I was in a year ago - pay based on income. At the same (only) clinic. With the same (only) doctor. Paying less that I actually pay WITH insurance.

So there's that. At least I wouldn't have to change doctors again.

[JimDandy]

145. So combine the free bronze plan (for catastrophic coverage)

with the income-based clinic you like...and problem solved.

[Glitterati]

146. No thanks

I'm done playing this game.

[JimDandy]

148. I don't like wasting my time on games...

Since that is what you consider my efforts to help...well buy bye.

[Glitterati]

149. toodles

Didn't ask for your help.

[Kali]

72. my question too

but OP says they live where the docs don't take ANY insurance (do the superwealthy just pay cash? don't they have insurance too? I have no idea, never been near that class of wealth.)

[TheKentuckian]

147. It's a whole separate deal though. Different networks and formularies.

Most importantly, a separate contract. You can often look at different policies online, including the ACA versions and you will see that it is different than you may have envisioned.
Maybe in some cases there is more parity with the commercial policies but even then it still can be all over the map.

Insurance is group driven as far as benefits go. The company is a factor for sure but the individual groups can and sometimes do override a lot of that. On the provider side it is usually payer selective but that is not the way this particular cake was baked.

It has to be understood that there are several possible permutations of any basic flavor of approach and that there are all kinds of individual pieces that make up the whole. Details do matter and more grow more troublesome and apparent with time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. Not credible.

It is not reasonable to believe that "most doctors in your community refuse to participate in ACA". This requires that they reject all the insurers who participate in the pool, and that your doctor, unlike most who belong to several networks, is only in Humana's. That is frankly implausible, and given your previous posts on the subject, they call your motives and honesty into question.

[Glitterati]

140. good luck with that

cause I'm quite done being called a liar.

So, onto my little ignore list you go.

Buh bye.

[still_one]

180. I suspect you are under an HMO like plan with the ACA, and that is why your situation

is the way it is. HMO plans are considerably less expensive than PPO plans, and the premiums are considerably more with PPO plans than HMO plans.

I suspect that is why your doctor is only available with the HMO you are under.

[still_one]

178. It all depends. Forget the ACA, even under different plans offerred under company plans I have

seen some doctors and facilities which covered by one insurance company that weren't covered by another.

Of course if you have a PPO plan through the ACA you should have no problem, but the issue there for many will be the increased cost of the premium

[misterhighwasted]

10. Yes GLitterati..and that is the part that makes fools out of all of us.

unbelievable!

[uppityperson]

76. I get to change back to my old doctor this next year, am VERY happy. Last yr he didn't take

either of my options so I had to drive nearly 2 hours to get something minor looked at. They are expanding my options as to different companies this next year and I get to go back to the guy I've seen for 15 years.

[Glitterati]

86. Marvelous!

Sounds like an excellent year ahead for you, medically.

[leftstreet]

5. What a shitty, shitty program

Having to 'shop around' for something as vital as health care, as if securing the basics of life is akin to getting the best price on brake parts or oranges

[Glitterati]

8. Not health CARE, health insurance

there ain't no "CARE" involved.

Cause ain't none of them got enough heart to "care" about any impact it has on people and families.

[pnwmom]

9. The "shitty" program is the no-possibility-of-insurance program that millions of people had before.

No possibility of Medicaid except for pregnant women and children; and no insurance for those with preexisting conditions.

I agree that this isn't as good or easy as single payer. But it is a great improvement on the nothing we had before.

[leftstreet]

12. Where's that Public Option Obama campaigned on?

Uh-oh. Did he fear arrest like they arrested the single payer advocates?

[pnwmom]

14. It died when Ted Kennedy died and was replaced with a Rethug.

The only bill that could be passed was the more conservative bill that had already been passed, with Kennedy's vote -- and that didn't have a public option.

After Kennedy's death, there was no possibility of the Senate approving the more liberal House bill that had a public option.

[B2G]

16. We passed the ACA without one Republican vote

Can you remind me again why would couldn't have passed single payer instead?

[Glitterati]

18. ROFL, it's their pat answer

Did you expect FACTS from this bunch? Really?

[leftstreet]

22. It's why they handed Kennedy's seat to a GOPer

It's astounding to imagine someone with Obama's political capital (the likes of which we will probably never see again in our lifetimes) didn't extend its glorious coattails to retain a Democratic seat as important as Kennedy's

[pnwmom]

21. I just explained it. We passed the Senate's ACA with Kennedy's vote.

Without his vote, we couldn't have passed it.

Once he died, the House voted on the Senate bill Kennedy had already voted FOR. The more liberal House bill had not yet come to a vote.

That House bill -- with the public option -- could not be approved by the Senate after Kennedy's death because they no longer had a 60 vote margin. So they had to go with the previously approved Senate bill. It was the Senate bill -- with Kennedy's vote -- or nothing. The House voted to approve the Senate bill rather than holding out for its own.

[B2G]

26. Kennedy died before the vote was eveh held. nt

[jeff47]

90. There were two votes in the Senate.

The first vote, Kennedy was alive. That bill contained most of the ACA.

A second vote was held to tweak that first bill after Kennedy's death, in order to change some of the reimbursement rates and other details. That bill could not reach 60 votes, thanks to douchebags like Lieberman. So that bill had to be passed via reconciliation.

[B2G]

95. I thought Ben Nelson killed the private option

Wasn't that like the great Nebraska compromise or something?

Who the hell decided to compromise?

[jeff47]

98. No, Lieberman was the killer. Nelson accepted a bribe

...errr..."Earmark".

Who the hell decided to compromise?

Everyone who realized they had no leverage that would get "The senator from Aetna" to agree to a public option, much less single-payer.

[pnwmom]

107. Joe Lieberman, the Independent from CT, was the deciding vote against the public option.

He would only vote for an ACA without one.

His state is the national home of several major insurance companies, which was clearly behind his position.

[pnwmom]

106. Thanks for the accurate information. There isn't enough here. n/t

[pnwmom]

116. Kennedy was alive when the Senate voted for the ACA.

His vote was an essential part of the super-majority. The only way to pass a bill then was for the House to then pass the Senate's version, which didn't include a public option.

[gmb92]

32. A few conservodems would have blocked single payer

It only would have taken one. They never had the votes on that from the start.

[leftstreet]

20. Remind me...how many GOPers voted yes? n/t

[pnwmom]

23. Didn't matter. We didn't have a 60 vote majority after Kennedy died. n/t

[ieoeja]

67. No Republican, but one necessary Independant: Joe Lieberman. n/t

[NCTraveler]

49. Which republican voted for it because of the lack of a public option? nt.

[ieoeja]

66. No Republican, but one necessary Independant: Joe Lieberman. n/t

[truedelphi]

88. No that is not at all true. The public option DIED in total when one Barack Obama

Went back on earlier pledges.

He campagined on Health Insurance.

Then the summer of 2009, he backed away publicly from any type of bully pulpit statements that might have fired up and induced the American public to call and put pressure on their Congress critters to take needed action and to put in the public option.

He claimed that he "had to back away" from any campaigning on his part, due to the respect he held for the three branches of government and their Constitutionally mandated "separation of powers." Please note first of all, how FDR did not invoke the separation of powers when he got to the White House - he actively went and dealt with Congress on the economy for one hundred days, until his platform for change was embodied by Congress!

But good ol' Obama, gosh and gee! he did not want to interfere with the Congressional critters and their need to have that separation. (Total hypocrisy as at that point in time, in reality, then Rahm and Ms Fowler were in the basement of the WH writing up the damn legislation that became the ACA!)

Also note how in summer of 2013, he was all bully pulpit for a war on the people of Syria, and took to the airwaves to bring the Puppet Masters their new war. (Luckily only 17% of all Americans were enthused about his idea about war, but due to ISIS/ISIL being leaked the weaponry we had gifted The UAE states and Saudi Arabia with, he got us in a new war.)

He was so cowardly during the summer of 2009 that even Jon Stewart mocked him. Jon brought about a discussion wherein mid-August 2009, he realted how Mr Obama was asked by a student at the Univ of Colorado, Boulder, about the public option.

Obama stated in response, "Well that public option is only one option among many tools we have."

That was all the enthuisiasm he had for it, and he backed away from further discussion stating that he had respect for "seapration of powers."

Here is his earlier enthusiasm for Single Payer, Universal HC:

[Glitterati]

94. Right, we ELECTED Obama on Single Payer, and got Hillary's ACA instead

and this is the result.

[truedelphi]

105. And why is that? The dirty little secret is that once in office,

A President realizes that he doesn't need to care about the nation, but rather he should start setting himself up as a dynasty.

The amounts of money that will come Obama's way at the Corporate Podium, as honorariums, that are the quid pro quo for the endorsing of Monsanto, endorsing the ACA, endorsing nuclear power and nuclear war heads, endorsing BP, endorsing the destruction of the environment while giving Big Energy firms their right to frack away our drinking water, these amounts of money will make the several hundred million the Clintons have received look like chump change.

[pnwmom]

114. Please explain how the Dems could have overcome the filibuster without Joe Lieberman's vote. n/t

[truedelphi]

199. That was explained again and again back in days of

Summer/Autumn 2009 discussions here at DU. We could have gotten 52 votes, or maybe more. And then Biden wouldn't have been needed to be a tie breaker.

And don't forget - the reason why some of the the Blue Dawgies would have been able to be converted over to the Public Option is if their constituents had flooded the offices in The House and Senate, per the public's response to bully pulpit exhortations of the Great Speechifier himself, one Barack Obama.

Here is Bernie Sanders explaining that we do have the ability to get a public option in the US Senate:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4283389

DU'ers in the comments section also detail possibilities.

Here is one more recent detailing of what went on in the backrooms o0f Congress etc regarding the ability f the Amerian people to see a public option:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/18/another-insider-declares-deal-was-made-to-stop-public-option/


Could Obama's walking up to a podium and delivering a gret speech aboit the Public Option, Aug 2009, made a difference? I don't know, as he never took a shot at it.

Like so many have said here - I don't blame any poltiicans if something I want doesn't get done IF THEY HAVE TRIED!~ But when they refuse to deliver a single decent attempt to do something, and then lie, and allow their Chief of Staff to do the very thing they are backing off, well, Barb's my uncle if I get ever enthused about that politician again.

After all, Obama never went to the bully pulpit, as he didn't want to interfere with his political dynasty, so while his Chief of Staff wrote the piece of legislation kown as the ACA, he pretended to feel that the Constitutional "separation of powers" was now required of him.

What do I mean by a political dynasty? That dynasty for our Presidents is detailed here. (Assuming Obama has the same quid pro quo that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have been handed.)

The amounts of money that Pres Bill Clinton got for his speechifying before a Corporate podium will be considered chump change when compared to what Obama will get:

Here is a lengthy but informative report on what goes on once you become the Presdient of the USA (Or future club member of Global "Charities 'R' Us" as I think of it. You can't apply to be a member unless you are an ex-President of theUSA.)

Now, I keep complaining about how the Presidents serve their eight years and then end up "managing" billions of dollars of "Charity monies." Plus they end up with honorariums, usually, I thought, worth about $ 100,000 per speech.

This explains why one President after another sells out the middle class. We watch helplessly as things essential to our way of life get picked off. Over the years this list includes even the FDR economic protections of Glass Steagal (Which Mr Clinton signed away.)

Once Glass Steagal was ended, it took less than eight years for the entire economy to collapse. And now of course, Mr Obama has most enthusiastically endorsed Monsanto Uber Alles. Then there are also his Bailouts worth trillions, handled oh so carefully by Mr Geithner, a man who often claimed "the President works for me." And then of course, his insurance reform which reformed so little it should be considered a scam, and which endorses huge profits for Big Pharma. (A bit of legislation that in all honesty was created by Rahm Emanuel and one Ms Fowler, who received a plush job as some type of excecutive for one of the bigger Health Insurers within fifteen months of her work on the legislation, while Rahm went on to handle the mayorial duties of the city of Chicago.)

Even worse are Obama's policies that endorse the Endless Wars, and privatized prisons. Also as partial support to the Big Prison Industry and to Big Pharma, his DOJ has repeatedly been coming in and busting apart medicinal marijuana dispensaries here in California. (Many dispensaries in big cities are now forced to serve a quarter of a million people, rather than 45,000 people, due to what the DOJ has done. As many as 9,000 decent paying jobs have been lost due to the DOJ's policies.)

But the honorarium factor explains why all this is so. I first read about it over at Naked Capitalism. This system of being paid for speeches is how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being bankrupt just immediately after they left the WH (due to legal fees involved with Whitewater and then Bill's impeachment trial) to then being among the One Percent in a bit over five years.

Now here is the "correction" sent to me by another political wonk regarding the amounts that Mr Clinton receives per speech in front of corporate podium. And while you read it, bear in mind that the sums of money that Mr Obama will be receiving for destroying the mdiddle class will make Clinton's haul look like chump change::

While HC was Secretary of State, she had to disclose amounts & sources of her husband's income on govt. employee financial disclosure forms. That's where all the details in this 2013 article come from. Now, and for as long as she is not a declared candidate for president, the Clintons' speechifying and all other income sources remain confidential - between them & the IRS. The details are almost impossible to believe - he was paid over $200,000 by a financially failing "non-profit" hospital. A newspaper publishing company in Nigeria paid him $700,000 each for speeches in two successive years - 2011 and 2012. Any politically cognizant person can draw conclusions about what quid pro quos are expected by domestic and foreign special interests groups and businesses in anticipation of Bill Clinton's wife being elected president.

http://politicaltick...01...-windfall/

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarks on her new career as a paid speaker, she joins a lucrative family business that already has earned her husband more than $100 million since leaving office in 2001.

According to a CNN analysis of 12 years of federal financial records, former President Bill Clinton had his most active and profitable year on the lecture circuit in 2012, delivering 73 speeches for $17 million from mid-January 2012 through mid-January 2013. That brought his total haul in speaking fees since leaving the White House to $106 million. His previous record for annual speech income was $13.4 million in 2011.

As in previous years, the former president's highest-paying events were held overseas. He earned $5.2 million last year for 15 speeches given in 12 countries. The most lucrative was a February speech to a local newspaper publishing company in Lagos, Nigeria, for which he received $700,000. He addressed the same group in 2011 for the same amount. He earned an additional $150,000 for a June speech delivered via satellite to an audience in Australia, while on a speaking tour in Florida. The remainder of his 2012 speech income was earned before domestic audiences in 15 states and the District of Columbia.


http://www.politico....pl...html?hp=l6

02/18/13 6:08 AM EDT

EXCLUSIVE: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will hit the paid speaking circuit this spring (likely April or May) and has selected the Harry Walker Agency, which represents President Clinton, as her agent. Industry officials expect that she will be one of the highest paid speakers in the history of the circuit, with fees well into the six figures in the United States and abroad.


]Bill Clinton has earned a whopping $500,000 speaking advance to deliver a 45 minute speech at the 90th birthday bash for Israeli President Shimon Peres — putting Clinton’s price tag at roughly $11,100 per minute.
In 2011, records show Clinton’s most lucrative events were overseas. He earned $750,000 in November 2011 to travel to Hong Kong to speak to employees at the Swedish-based telecom giant Ericsson. That year, he also earned $700,000 for an appearance at a newspaper publishing company in Lagos, Nigeria, and $550,000 for a speech to a business conference in Shanghai, China.


Read more: http://www.nydailyne...cs...z31uB4y4ch



Bill Clinton accepted a $225,000 speaking fee from the nonprofit Washington Hospital Center smack in the middle of two big rounds of layoffs in 2012 — one of a number of tax-exempt organizations that have paid big money to hear the former president talk.

The $225,000 payment wasn’t made public by the hospital on its annual Internal Revenue Service forms, but rather appeared among dozens of lucrative speeches by Mr. Clinton reported on his wife’s final ethics filing as secretary of state.

“No disrespect to Bill Clinton, but that money could’ve gone a long way and been put to better use,” said Dan Fields Jr., president of the Service Employees International Union Local 722 representing hospital workers. “Our contract expires on June 30, and I’m pretty sure they’re going to come to the table and talk about how they’re losing money, so this concerns me greatly.”

The hospital is hardly the only 501©(3) organization to shell out big money to hear Mr. Clinton speak. The Naples Philharmonic Center in Florida paid Mr. Clinton $200,000. Later, the nonprofit filed IRS forms showing that it lost $338,000 in overall revenue of about $24 million that same year. Another organization listed on Mrs. Clinton’s ethics form, the Bushnell Center, shelled out a six-figure check to Mr. Clinton. IRS forms show it reported a $1.8 million deficit during the same tax year it hired the former president.


Read more: http://www.washingto...14...z31uDdyZfU

[pnwmom]

201. Since when is 52 votes enough to overcome a filibuster? n/t

[jeff47]

111. Feel free to explain how you would have gotten Lieberman to vote for single-payer.

Lieberman votes no, and it doesn't pass the Senate.

Should we have done that, and kept the "old" way of doing things?

[pnwmom]

113. Obama was making the best of a situation he couldn't control. It was up to the House and

Senate to pass the ACA, not Obama.

The Senate's version of the ACA had no public option, because Lieberman, the Independent, wouldn't vote with the Democrats otherwise.

The House had an ACA with the public option.

After the Senate bill was passed, Kennedy died.

The House had yet to pass a bill. The only way to get a bill done was for the House to pass the Senate bill as is (except for financial tweaks that could be done during reconciliation.)

So that's what happened. The choice for the House was to pass the Senate bill, with Kennedy's vote, or to pass their bill and watch it being defeated in the Senate -- the new Senate with Scott Brown replacing Kennedy. So the House passed the Senate's bill.

[truedelphi]

200. Obama's Chief of Staff wrote the damn piece of legislation.

Rahm Emanuel and Ms Fowler wrote the ACA inside the bowels of the WH basement.

Numerous articles on the internet detailed how Fowler was offered a plush job inside industry for her efforts.

Don't pretend to not know that, pnwmom!

[joshcryer]

24. The waiver enables single payer in 2017.

Vermont will be the first state to implement it.

Not possible without ACA.

[BlindTiresias]

27. Then we will have a balkanizer single payer system

Which private business will be sure to sabotage as they flee to non single payer states, which is a known peril of federalist policy.

As I said, the ACA is not going to go in the direction so many people want it to.

[joshcryer]

33. Let's see them out compete single payer.

I'd be impressed. Costs will be significantly lower in single payer states.

[BlindTiresias]

46. They don't want to control costs though

Assuming that businesses can get waivers for lower grade insurance or pass the insurance on to the individual (nearly guaranteed with right wing control of govt, as incrementalism cuts both ways) and the insurance companies still intact to move to loosen regulations on them, yeah, I think ideological driven pro-business types would love a balkanized system so they can flee to states without rigorous healthcare systems in place, no matter how more efficient they are.

What I am saying is that the incrementalist direction for the ACA you are assuming to exist is not guaranteed and actually quite unlikely given the ideological makeup of both dem and repub leadership. There will be incremental changes to it, but it won't be in the direction of "singlepayer" and the state specific movement towards single payer will be attacked by the right as every effort is made to make them fail.

The only way this would have ever worked is if the power of the insurance companies was broken, but it wasn't, and they are going to clawback what regulations do exist and twist the ACA to be totally in their favor, which really already is but these are totalitarians we are speaking of, so nothing but totality will satisfy them.

[joshcryer]

135. There will be a minimal standard.

States that go for full privatization will either be more costly or unable to get a waiver.

[jeff47]

92. Yeah, just look at all those businesses fleeing the blue states.

Why, California is an utter economic wasteland!!

What the ACA enables is state-by-state single-payer. So we fight in the blue states where it's more likely to pass. Those give us concrete examples that single-payer does not bring about armageddon, letting us get single-payer in purple states. Which then lets us return to the national battle in a much stronger position.

It's exactly how Canada got single-payer.

[BlindTiresias]

99. Canada wasn't also in the grip of right wing totalitarians

You are expecting rational actions and outcomes from people driven by pure ideology, and are ignoring the fact that incremental change is not always in the direction of progressive and the right wing will attempt to warp the ACA into the Heritage foundation policy.

California's economic strength is also a weird example to use, as California is going to do well no matter what due to being in an extremely advantageous position.

[jeff47]

104. Actually, Canada was.

Only one provence was willing to pass single-payer at the beginning.

The last provence passed single payer decades later - it's the Canadian equivalent of Texas. It only passed because single-payer was working so well everywhere else.

You are expecting rational actions and outcomes from people driven by pure ideology, and are ignoring the fact that incremental change is not always in the direction of progressive and the right wing will attempt to warp the ACA into the Heritage foundation policy.

The error in your analysis is you're still thinking nationally. Alabama doesn't get a say in whether or not Vermont goes single-payer.

Yes, the douchebags in Alabama and other red states will continue to try to fuck everything up. That actually helps us, in that it provides an even starker contrast between the states that go single-payer or public option and the red states.

California's economic strength is also a weird example to use, as California is going to do well no matter what due to being in an extremely advantageous position.

K, how 'bout Massachusetts? Or New York? Or Oregon? Or Washington? Or any other blue state.

Your theory would mean every single "high-tax" blue state must have a terrible economy with businesses fleeing to the "low-tax" red states. That hasn't happened, despite decades of effort by Republicans. Businesses aren't fleeing Oregon for Kansas.

Also, I don't recommend blindly agreeing with Republicans on macroeconomics, as you've done here. They're always wrong.

[BlindTiresias]

115. No, the right wing in Canada was not nearly as strong or had a totalitarian edge

The totalitarian edge in the democratic liberal capitalist world (non-fascist, non-communist west) was always present but became ascendent in the 1980's. So, no, they didn't have powerful right wing totalitarians, they had general resistance.

You are actually likely correct, I forgot to consider that the left leaning states are primarily located in developed and desirable areas in addition to other accessory benefits, so migration based on healthcare alone was overstated on my part. I concede that point to you, the left leaning areas may be able to get single payer of some kind if the ACA isn't entirely warped. I don't see the benefit of a balkanized system like that, however, as it will just be yet another divide in an already divided country. I highly doubt the rightist states are going to jump on singlepayer if they work out fine in left states.

[jeff47]

118. Yes, actually it was.

The right-wing folks in Canada are just as crazy as the right-wing folks in the US.

I don't see the benefit of a balkanized system like that, however, as it will just be yet another divide in an already divided country.

Because the only argument against single-payer is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). In other words, bullshit.

Single-payer or public options working in blue states make it very difficult for FUD to work beyond the ideologically committed. That gives us an opening to expand from the blue states into the purple states.

I highly doubt the rightist states are going to jump on singlepayer if they work out fine in left states.

They won't. They'll be dragged along when we return to the national battle after winning in the blue and several purple states.

This isn't going to be a short battle. Canada's first single-payer system started in 1946 in Saskatchewan. They didn't have a real national single-payer system until 1966. And they're still doing significant tweaks to it.

[BlindTiresias]

120. Eh

Our right wing is more radical, and you are forgetting that the right wing is ascendent all throughout the west at the moment. The situation is very different than it was from 1930-1970, in that the right wing has achieved a monopoly on message and political possibility and especially in the United States. Comparing the right wing in Canada in the 40's and 50's to the right wing in the United States in 2014 is thus twice removed from a correct analysis.

Given the right swing swing in this country I don't see the single payer thing working out as they will hobble the ACA as much as possible, though you are correct in saying it would be a net benefit to the states that enacted it. It is for that reason that the right wing can't allow it to live, just like they have killed any measure that would be successful in helping out most people and have even successfully changed the national narrative so that only right wing economic theory is acceptable.

[jeff47]

128. Really, our right-wing isn't.

Again, their right wing is plenty crazy.

Comparing the right wing in Canada in the 40's and 50's to the right wing in the United States in 2014 is thus twice removed from a correct analysis.

Yeah, there's so many right-wingers in control of California's government.

Oh wait....

Given the right swing swing in this country

Based on what? The failure of personhood amendments and the success of minimum wage hikes?

The Democratic party's failure to stand for anything does not indicate a swing to the right.

I don't see the single payer thing working out as they will hobble the ACA as much as possible

They're out of ways to hobble it. They'd have to get Obama to sign a law rolling it back. The SCOTUS case everyone's talking about won't affect the blue states - they set up exchanges. They'll still get subsidies.

and have even successfully changed the national narrative so that only right wing economic theory is acceptable.

Is that why you constantly revert to right-wing economic theory in this thread?

[BlindTiresias]

134. Well, yeah

My educational training post-grad was in political science and public policy, which is steeped in right wing economic thought. It may seep through quite a bit despite the fact I am opposed to it and disagree with it. However, that is kind of the mainstream in this country and you will get funny looks if you take heterodox positions. I got quite a few snipey comments from colleagues when I was enthusiastically supporting Piketty's book earlier in the year. You should take these positions not as how I think things ought to be, but how I think the political orthodoxy is going to react.

I should note the swing to the right isn't necessarily among the population. As we can clearly see, the population supports some policies that are very firmly not part of right wing orthodoxy. It is the case, however, that this right wing orthodoxy is fully dominant in political leadership and theory, barring some voices in the wilderness.

The right wing now in the United States is indeed more severe than they were in 1930-1960 and also more entrenched in the political orthodoxy and leadership of both parties. Take a look at Eisenhower's policies and the standing economic policies of the 1950's and then look at what we take as a "left winger" such as Bill Clinton. You think a 1950's republican would support economic theory out of the Austrian school? Hell no.

Edit: I realize I may be talking past you in regards to right versus left wing. There are currently no political effective parties that are actually left wing in the United States, the Democrats are center right and the Republicans are far right but they both follow the same economic theories for the most part and differ on some social issues.

[BlindTiresias]

25. It is actually a marginal improvement as a great cost

And the great cost is that the insurance companies are permanently entrenched now and there will be no hope of any further reform of the ACA after this. What a hill to die on.

[truedelphi]

34. Just today, a trending story is that of a woman taken to the *wrong* hospital.

Of course, common sense dictates that when a person is in a coma, and may be suffering from the effects of heart attack or stroke, the closest hospital should always be the right hsptial, and not the wrong one.

But the ACA was set up to allow for maximum profits to Insurers, and not for health needs or for common sense.

All the details of the Madison Wi woman's plight are told here:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/woman-taken-to-wrong-hospital-faces-bankruptcy/29648000

[jeff47]

110. You mean "just a week ago".

But the ACA was set up to allow for maximum profits to Insurers, and not for health needs or for common sense.

No, the ACA was set up to move the battle for single-payer to the states. It's time for us to get to work in the blue states getting the job done.

[woo me with science]

38. Amen. Trashing Third Way talking points

trying to put lipstick on this predatory pig. No American should have to deal with this HORSESHIT of having to shop around in desperation/move down to a cheaper plan every time rates skyrocket.

These lecturing talking points only drive home the dripping contempt of the Third Way for the human beings they pretend to represent.

Ignore Third Way talking points and spin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160

It's united oligarchy, not gridlocked democracy. You nailed the utter viciousness of this garbage. No human being should have to scramble repeatedly for a new deal on health insurance, because the old plan keeps spiraling out of reach.

[Doctor_J]

125. travesty is a good word for it

I continue to be surprised at what Americans will swallow as long as it's served right (or by the right people)

[still_one]

194. The only way to avoid that is to sign up for a PPO under the ACA, but PPO are considerably more

expensive, and if the doctor is out of the network, there will be more out of pocket expenses for the consumer

[TBF]

197. Very inefficient -

new cards & plans being printed for everyone, finding new doctors, having to send all your medical records to new places - doing this over & over every year? ... all in the name of providing profits for the insurance companies.

We need single payer now.

[jamzrockz]

203. I would never understand

why some people have a problem with shopping for a product as important as health insurance. I mean, I want to customize, choose doctors, area of service etc etc as much as possible. And you know, you can do all this shopping way before you get sick, it doesn't have to happen in the ambulance.

[truedelphi]

29. Pwnmom, thanks for this discussion. Do you know when

Open enrollment ends?

[misterhighwasted]

39. Here ar the dates for enrollment from ACA Website

Here are the most important dates for 2015 coverage:

November 15, 2014: Open Enrollment starts -- the first day you can apply for 2015 coverage

December 15, 2014: The last date to enroll for coverage that starts January 1, 2015

December 31, 2014: Date when all 2014 Marketplace coverage ends, no matter when you enrolled

January 1, 2015: The date 2015 coverage can start if you apply by December 15, 2014, or if you accept automatic enrollment in your 2014 plan or a similar plan

February 15, 2015: The last day to enroll in 2015 coverage. If you miss this deadline, you can’t sign up for a health plan inside or outside the Marketplace for the rest of 2015. The only exception is if you qualify for a Special Enrollment Period.
Medicaid, CHIP, and SHOP – apply any time

There’s no limited enrollment period for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). You can apply any time.
There’s also no limited enrollment period for small businesses to enroll in SHOP coverage for their employees. You can apply any time.

https://www.healthcare.gov/quick-guide/dates-and-deadlines/

[truedelphi]

56. Thanks for such a comprehensive list.

We are going to sign up for next year. It will be almost affordable, then, for us, as M begins MediCare around the first of the year, so it will just be me.

[progressoid]

53. "all the new options"?

We have a grand total of 2 options.

[Glitterati]

59. Shhhh, you're not supposed to mention that

Cause, you know, someone might take offense to the facts.

[ieoeja]

77. In two days you have gone from a DUer I did not recognize to the meanest DUer ever.

Post after post after post about how much you hate DUers.

If you hate everyone here so much, why don't you just get the fuck out of here?

[Glitterati]

80. Awww, did I hurt your feelings?

Trust me, I won't be back.

I'm really sorry the facts are so upsetting to you.

[ieoeja]

84. Good! This board will definitely be a better place without your nastiness.

If I wanted that, I would go to Discussionist or Yahoo! boards.

[Glitterati]

87. Bwahahahahaha

you ARE at the equivalent.

[Union Scribe]

139. Given how some DUers attacked them

I'd say that sentiment is quite warranted.

[BlindTiresias]

57. As usual

Center right dem orthodoxy cares more about political expediency than the general welfare, and will crush any that dissent as the real human cost of warped center-right policies challenges their narrative.

[B2G]

65. The 'general welfare' has become very personal for many.

Are you proposing that someone barely getting by just shut up, suck it up and do without insurance because there are people worse off than them that are benefiting? Are you saying it's A-OK to change plans and doctors every year because there's no market stability? That their kids are just going to have to do without because the premium went up and the subsidy didn't?

Is that what this law was supposed to be about? How is that any better than what we had before??

[BlindTiresias]

71. No

The ACA was bad policy the way it was written, it is exactly the kind of center-right nonsense that has destroyed the Democratic party.

[B2G]

75. Agreed. Thanks. nt

[jeff47]

96. Feel free to explain how you get Joe Lieberman to vote for single-payer.

Our option in 2009/2010 was to either pass something Lieberman would vote for, or pass nothing.

If you would have preferred the latter, that's fine. But you shouldn't pretend that single-payer was passable in 2009/2010. Lieberman, Ben Nelson and several other conservative Democrats in the Senate said "Absolutely not".

[BlindTiresias]

101. Its a bit like whether you want to drink the salt water when stranded in the ocean.

The ACA was a full on gift to insurance companies and this talk of a progressive reform to the ACA is pure fantasy. The insurance companies are now fully entrenched as a fixture even in a government sponsored program and you can bet that the right wing direction in this country is going to have a significant impact on its further developments. They will vigorously oppose any further regulations that limit their ability to set rates as they see fit, which is exactly what singlepayer would do (at the very minimum). Ergo, I don't see single payer coming down the pipe anytime soon, if ever.

[jeff47]

108. So we should have passed nothing then?

All those folks in states that embraced the ACA, such as Kentucky, should go back to "die quickly"?

Medicare wasn't built in one bill. Neither was Social Security. We're still building them. It's going to take a while for the ACA to become single-payer. But the ACA gives us a framework in which we can do that - bring it to the blue states. Then the purple. Then go back to the national battle.

[BlindTiresias]

117. Different time

The right wing is extremely strong now, to the point where I would say a substantial of Democrats and most Dem leadership are also right wing. Those policies were incrementally revised in a good direction during a time when that wasn't the case. You are failing to understand that incremental approaches do not just work in one way, they can go in right wing directions too depending on the political climate.

[jeff47]

119. Those policies were incrementally revised last year.

Heck, W is the one that added drug coverage to Medicare.

You are failing to understand that incremental approaches do not just work in one way, they can go in right wing directions too depending on the political climate.

Which is why I'm talking about focusing on the blue states.

This isn't a national battle anymore. It's a state-by-state battle. You're still thinking of it as a national battle....and ignoring recent history (Medicare-D)

[BlindTiresias]

121. Uh..

if the right wing manages to hobble the ACA, which if I recall is what you identified as the mechanism allowing for the blue states singlepayer reform to even occur, then that kind of neatly ends the experimentation right there unless they engage in much more limited state reform distinct from the ACA.

[jeff47]

126. Except they can't hobble it in that way

Right now, their only viable route is the SCOTUS decision taking away subsidies from non-state exchanges.

All the blue states set up exchanges. Taking away subsidies from red states won't stop the blue states.

Any other hobbling has to get Obama's signature. Not gonna happen.

2016 election? They have to run every "purple" state, as well as turn one "blue" state. Dems need to win one purple state. Now, it is possible that Clinton could run such a terrible campaign that Republicans pull that off. But even I don't think she'd Coakley it that badly.

[Brigid]

124. Where did you get those rose-colored glasses?

I need some.

[jeff47]

129. Feel free to point out how Medicare hasn't changed since the 1960s.

To think the ACA is the end of the job is just moronic.

[Brigid]

130. It shouldn't be.

But LBJ isn't around anymore.

[jeff47]

131. It isn't.

Unless we surrender.

It's clear you've given up. There's lots of us who haven't, and are going to use the ACA to get what we want.

[still_one]

195. I had a discussion with a fellow DUer on that just the other day, and it was that person's belief

that Lieberman and the other blue dogs could be bought. I indicated that essentially either the blue dogs and Lieberman were already bought by lobbyists, or they didn't believe in single-payer philosophically. Assuming they were bought by lobbyists, could the Democratic leadership sweetened the deal? I find that not likely at all. The lobbyists are essentially doing out right bribes, and allowing these politicians positions after they are out of Congress with quite lucritive packages.

When Lieberman left Congress he lobbied for Basit Igtet on a government relations contract. He then subsequently has also joined the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, as co-chairman of the American Internationalism Project. In addition, he also works for a New York Law firm.


http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/303875-joe-lieberman-joins-law-firm-in-new-york


Not only could Lieberman not be bought, there is some real questions if he is even a Democrat. Let's face it, his endorsement of John McCain says everything about him, and because of so-called fair weather democrats like him, why we were fortunate to get the ACA passed.

[jeff47]

196. We tried to buy them.

In fact, Ben Nelson accepted a nice bribe....err...earmark.

Lieberman refused to budge.

[still_one]

198. No surprise from me

[PasadenaTrudy]

97. I'm planning to go with Kaiser

here in SoCal. I currently have a Blue Shield PPO, not bought on the exchange, and have had a hard time finding doctors who will take it. At least with Kaiser I'll know all of their doctors will see me. Good grief, what a maze.

[Adsos Letter]

122. That's one of the advantages of Kaiser.

They own their hospitals and clinics, and their docs are all part of it. Plus, they are pretty ubiquitous, at least in the metro areas.

We belong to Kaiser in NorCal. We were visiting our daughter in San Diego, and I left my meds at home (diabetic, and some other meds I can't miss). I just went in to a clinic and, even though Kaiser in SoCal and NorCal operate as separate systems, they were able to quickly have all of my medicines for me in enough dosage to last the trip.

Their plans can be more costly, though.

[PasadenaTrudy]

123. I think I can do a Silver plan...

It has a $1250 deductible and it will be $412.92 a month. I currently have a Blue Shield Platinum equivalent that is going up to $507 a month next year. I want to be under $500! Turning 50 made my rates shoot up I guess. It is all so expensive no matter how you look at it

[Adsos Letter]

133. Well, best of luck to you.

I think you'll like what Kaiser has to offer.

I can't swear that every experience I have had there has been without issues, but the overwhelming majority of my visits have been very positive. We have been with them for about 25 years, and I am extremely fortunate that my wife has received an excellent coverage plan for our family as a part of her employment compensation.

This country needs to go to single-payer. Everyone should have access to good healthcare, based on the fact that we're humans and not on whether we have a lot of money.

Good luck.

[PasadenaTrudy]

141. Thank you!

Good health to you both.

[Sunlei]

102. Humana has tripled my ACA premium, I haven't even used the insurance one time!

I'm shopping for a different plan!

[pnwmom]

174. Good luck, Sunlei! n/t

[Rstrstx]

188. Your premium, or the amount you'll have to pay?

They're different things.

I saw a letter from a friend who was paying about $22/mo on this year's plan and it said he would have to pay $58 this year for the same plan. When looking at the fine print it says that was based on 2014's tax credit. Well his tax credit is going up $20/mo so that would bring it down to $38. But I checked online and there are some other insurers, new ones, offering plans with similar benefits for close to that same $20/mo mark.

It's worth it to do some research, he'll certainly be switching. And like you, he didn't use it once. I'm wondering if a free bronze plan may work better? (probably not, if for nothing other than emergency room visits)

[Rstrstx]

189. Oh, and one more thing

Healthcare.gov works great now (though I have to use Chrome on a mac)

[LWolf]

127. This is an interesting quote:

“What we’re saying is that if you don’t get coverage this time, your fine is going to double. When we start telling people that, it starts to click a little more for them.”

The key being "coverage," not "care." The ACA has attempted to provide affordable "coverage," but with copays and deductibles, care is still not affordable for many. If they aren't getting actual care, some may prefer to pay the higher penalty, which for many is still much lower than their premiums for not getting care would have been.

Meanwhile, the "coverage" provided by my employer continues to go up in premium, copay, and deductible, which means I'm continuing to avoid care whenever possible. And there's nothing better on the exchange. I don't think I qualify to shop on the exchange, but I have looked anyway.

[pnwmom]

173. The Essential Benefits include free vaccines and screening for conditions that should be

caught early -- like colon and breast cancer. Also for yearly exams. Co-pays and deductibles don't apply.

So I suggest you at least rule out serious undiagnosed conditions before deciding to stay away from doctors.

[LWolf]

175. I still pay for the office visit.

I don't have the deductible available in my yearly budget. And I'm not alone. Which is the point.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

172. Thank you. Voice of sanity and reason ! nt

[Zorra]

179. I am switching plans. My new plan is better than my current plan, at $110 LESS per month!!!

The ACA may not be perfect, but what I have now is way better than the health coverage plan I had before the ACA took effect, which was the "Republican No Coverage At All Let Them Die" plan.

[MadrasT]

204. I am sick and tired of seeing democrats putting lipstick on this pig. n/t

[pnwmom]

205. I guess you'll be happy when Pres. Bush takes over in 2016

and a Republican Congress repeals the ACA.

They've already got a great plan. They'll get rid of the expanded Medicaid for the states that have it and give all those people a tax credit to buy some insurance on the open market!

That ought to work really well.