Klukie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:49 AM
Original message |
Healthcare reform is going to blow up in our faces |
|
Imagine for a moment all of the people that work for minimum wage or even slightly above...Now imagine a scenario in which they are forced to buy a healthcare plan that they can't afford the premium for, let alone the high decuctibles and co-pays on. When they realize that they have no other viable alternatives to this crappy plan, what do think is going to happen? People generally don't like to be forced to do things that aren't good for them.
|
OregonBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Minimum wage earners are going to get hefty subsidies and will be able to afford insurance. |
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
8. Who is going to cover the high co-pays and deductibles for those workers? |
|
There will be a subsidy for the premiums only, not for copays and deductibles..
The only thing worse than no insurance is having insurance you can't use.
|
quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Not true. There are also individual/family cost-sharing subsidies in the bill. nt |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Subsidies cover max out-of-pocket, not just premiums. |
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
29. Please link to the section of the bill that spells that out |
|
I have not been able to find it.
|
Missy Vixen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
62. The section of the bill that states the subsidies is playing ten-dimensional chess with President |
|
Obama right now.
My advice? Don't hold your breath waiting for the link.
:eyes:
|
FarLeftFist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #62 |
90. Health care reform calculator |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
22. A 25 year old with no dependents making $10 an hour will have to come up with $90 a month. |
|
Which is a lot of money when you're only making 10 bucks an hour.
|
Matariki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
23. Thank you. People have been stubornly ignoring the numbers on this issue. |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
31. They don't care. They'll usually respond with a lecture about "collective responsibility". |
|
Completely oblivious to how condescending and assholish they sound.
|
closeupready
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
48. Or worse, they just call you a liar and shout "GO READ THE BILL" |
yodoobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #31 |
92. collective responsibility is progressive value |
|
Its not condescending. Its just fact.
That wasn't even in dispute a year ago here. It has only become disputed by a few once they realized that they might have to live up to the responsibility portion.
|
sabrina 1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #92 |
97. If you're talking about mandated insurance, it certainly was in |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-18-10 01:02 AM by sabrina 1
dispute. Mandated insurance is a Republican idea opposed by real Democrats including this president.
I'm not going to waste my time linking to Obama's own words about why he did NOT support them. I've posted them many times, it's not hard to find. Why did he flip-flop on his position on mandates which was a principled position? He has never bothered to explain.
If you want see how this bill will work, look at what is happening in Mass. This is just a bigger version of Romneycare and I don't recall much support for Romneycare back when it was Republicans who were pushing it. What I remember is Democrats vehemently opposing it BECAUSE of mandates.
Most real Democrats supported and still do, a Single Payer system. The for-profit system that is now being expanded is immoral and everyone knows in the world knows it, except for people who care more about a win for the team than about people's basic rights. Not much difference between the two parties after all, and this HCR mess has definitely proved it.
Claiming that poor people for whom $90.00 a month may as well be $10,000.00 something apparently many 'democrats' cannot relate to, need to pull up their bootstraps and stop being a 'burden on the rest of us', is nothing more than proof that Democrats have moved so close to the right, that is hardly any difference at all. Your own post proves it. I remember not so long ago, when it was Republicans posting this kind of 'responsibility' accusation against the poor.
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
27. Is that $90 pre tax or post tax? n/t |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
35. I've tried to find that out. In my state Medicaid eligibility is based mostly on gross pay. |
|
There are deductions for work, educational, and child care expenses but that's it.
|
OregonBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
43. It's usually based on Gross adjusted earnings. Not gross pay. |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #43 |
47. Like I just said. They allow for some deductions but it's not your net take home. eom |
ourbluenation
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
38. are they working full time or part time? Full time it's about 5% of monthly income. n/t |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
39. Right, because people making $10 an hour have so much extra cash lying around. |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-17-10 12:48 PM by Hello_Kitty
See, this is what I'm talking about: People who have no clue what it's like for people who live hand to mouth. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed and get back to me.
|
ourbluenation
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #39 |
40. You're making some assumptions about where I'm at on all this. n/t |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
41. Sorry if I jumped to a wrong conclusion. |
|
This subject has me hair-triggery. :hi:
|
Mari333
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
28. lots of champagne liberals on DU Im afraid |
|
clueless as to what it is to live on minimum wage or be jobless.
|
LynneSin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
58. Or they could be covered under their parents plans - that's in the bill |
|
n/t
My nephew is one of those you speak of. In HCR he can now go under his father's health insurance plan.
|
Occulus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #58 |
72. What if his father hated him and refused to put him on it? n/t |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #58 |
76. Right, because every 25 year old is in your nephew's situation. |
|
Every 25 year old making 10 bucks an hour has middle class parents with good insurance who are willing and can afford to insure them.
|
Bryn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
79. Mom gets $1093.00 SS checks monthly, $96.00 is taken out for Medicare plus |
|
53.00 for Plan D (Bush's gift to Big Pharma) plus $173.00 BlueCross BlueShield as supplement to Medicare. This leaves her $771.00 per month to live on. (no co-payments/deductibles which is good)
I also have Medicare via SSDI. 96.00 is taken out for Medicare and no extra charge for Windsor Advantage which includes prescription drug plan, basic vision, basic dental and other extras. Co payment is 15.00 for dr. visit and low deductibles for others.
If this 25 yr old person making $10 an hr pays $90 a month before tax this probably is a good deal, but I don't know how much this person would have to pay for co-payments/deductibles. If they're too much, then $90.00 per month would be wasteful.
|
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #79 |
102. I had two plans that were similar to those being proposed for the poor; $10,000 |
|
deductible (minimum) with a 20% copay after the deductible is met. They fight every claim on top of that.
|
Greyhound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
95. Actually, that person has to come up with ~$200 per/month and hope that they get the difference back |
|
in a tax refund.
Just keeping the scenario accurate and kicking.
|
WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
108. But look at it this way, if you got sick once your bill could rise far |
|
above the $1,080 you would pay per year.
|
RainDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
94. with a 60% deductible, right? |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-18-10 12:29 AM by RainDog
that was the last bit I read.
do you really think a person making even 10 bucks an hour can afford to pay that percentage of all medical costs out of pocket?
do you have any idea what life is like for working people in this nation?
|
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
100. That won't help with the fact that they can't afford the 10k deductibles, the 20% copays |
|
or the claims that will always be turned down. I had the kinds of plans they are proposing for the poor; you pay out and get ZERO in return for your investment.
|
jljamison
(125 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message |
|
that is what the subsidies are for.
|
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
17. Theory. Practical experience has taught the poor that theories aren't reality |
|
When you can't take time off to get to a doctor you can't afford to pay anyway...
When taking time off for care means less paycheck and possibly no ability to pay the rent that month....
When one has no car and it may take up to 4 extra hours to get to doctor and back by bus....
When workers can barely keep roof over them AND food on the table....
Theory just doesn't do a lot.
|
jonathon
(284 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:51 AM
Response to Original message |
3. That is why they are pushing of the majority of this bill into going into effect until AFTER |
|
The next Presidential election....
I am disgusted at this entire thing.
|
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
21. That deserves to be restated over and over |
|
It is a question that needs to be asked, a lot: WHY doesn't the bulk of it go into effect until after 2012?
Hmmm, corporations can give give give, sayeth the SCOTUS. Methinks they will have lots of $$ to pay off pols before the people see how much this 'reform' needs reforming.
|
Maat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
This retired social worker thinks that this whole thing is going to be a disaster.
|
TorchTheWitch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
98. I've been saying that from the beginning |
|
They knew from the beginning that this was going to be a huge financial burden to most people.
|
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |
4. I think this is more of a positive than a negative for Democrats... |
|
If they define it as a first step and not the end of healthcare reform.
|
sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
87. Except they'll be out of power.... |
|
... and hence unable to enact reforms later.
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message |
5. It is risky. We'll see what happens. |
theoldman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message |
6. What high deductibles? |
|
What high co-pays? Where are you getting this information? Fox News!
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Low end policies aren't going to have deductibles and co-pays? |
ipaint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
24. I'm waiting for an answer, too. |
|
When all you can afford with a subsidy is a 60/40 plan I had no idea there was some mysterious entity within the bill that was picking up the 40 share.
Please, all of you who have read and analyzed all 2700 pages, enlighten me.
|
quiller4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
30. The very low-end really high deductible policies won't exist |
|
Some policies now have deductibles as high as $5,000. Those will be gone. Also much preventive care will be exempt from deductibles entirely.
|
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
34. For a single person the House bill allows an annual deductible of $1,500 |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-17-10 12:35 PM by dflprincess
with a max out of pocket of $5,000 (max out of pocket for a family is $10,000). The Senate bill permits a max out of pocket of just over $5,900 (single) and over $11,000 (family). These out of pocket may increase annually.
|
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
103. Anyone who has ever had one of these policies (I've had two. Most of my self employed friends |
|
have them) know exactly how they are structured; there's a minimum $10,000 deductible with a 20% copay after that deductible is met. And don't think that they'll pay out ANY claims without a huge fight; a friend of mine who works in a claims department told me that denying claims on low income plans is simply corporate policy; they know that policy holders don't have the resources to fight them.
If you doubt these standards, do your own insurance search and talk to an insurance representative.
|
quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Imagine that you actually read the bill and knew what you were talking about. nt |
theoldman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. If people actually read the bill, there would be little argument. |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. +1000. Please READ THE BILL PEOPLE! |
kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
16. Has anyone actually read the entire 2700 pages? |
Schema Thing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message |
13. you're ignorant of what this bill does |
|
inform yourself before you waste our time.
|
no limit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
44. You're ignorant of whats its like to be single and live on $10 an hour |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-17-10 01:49 PM by no limit
|
girl gone mad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
52. EVeryone who doesn't agree with you must be ignorant. |
|
That seems to be a persistent theme among bill boosters, yet there is no substance to any of the posts making such dithering proclamations.
|
Klukie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
80. You chose to waste your time... |
|
stay out of the post if it is so ignorant.
|
John Q. Citizen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:00 PM
Response to Original message |
15. The Dems pushing a Repo plan is a bad idea, politically, if you ask me. |
|
Forcing Americans to buy an inferior product from people of ill repute makes no sense.
|
havocmom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
|
Considering that so many bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, even for people WITH decent insurance, how the hell does more corporate insurance help?
|
CreekDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:09 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Of course, what are your options now? Bankruptcy? |
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
32. Pretty much the same options many will have with "reform" |
|
If you're income is over the subsidy limit, you have a chronic condiditon and you're looking at $5,000 in annual out of pocket expenses. Or if you don't have a chronic condition but that preventative test comes back needing follow up - that can get pretty pricey even if the follow up test come out okay.
Of course, you can always put your deductible and copays on a credit card - the other industry that will win big with this scam.
|
CreekDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
42. The Same??? You can get insurance with a chronic condition? |
|
If you can, can you get it to cover your condition?
Finally, if it's the same, will your rate be the same as someone who is healthy and in the same age group as you?
You have lost me on your other points because because you insisted on calling things the same.
|
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
53. The same situation will exist - |
|
It's not impossible for someone with a chronic condition to get coverage now - the question is and will be can you afford it? Or, will the coverage you can afford come with out of pocket expenses that are so high you still can't get care?
People with preexisting conditions are going to be pushed into a "high risk" pool and coverage won't come cheap. And, you know what - not everyone who has what the insurance companies call a preexisting condition has a chronic condition or even big odds of having a problem in the future but they will land in the "high risk" pool. Over thirty years ago my cousin's wife had lymphoma - she's been healthy since, but what insurance she could get, she can't afford. She'll land in the "high risk" pool paying more than she should for a shoddy product, if she can afford what's offered through this scam.
People need access to care, not access to coverage. Especially "coverage" from companies that makes their money by finding ways to deny that access.
|
CreekDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #53 |
54. The same, except there will be subsidies for people to buy coverage |
|
the same except there will subsidies for people in the high risk pool to buy coverage
the same except the out of pocket amount will be limited, which it isn't currently
the same except that in four years, those with preexisting conditions will be charged the same amount as healthy people in their age group
the same except that there will be non profit exchanges set up to compete with private health plans
the same except for major expansion of Medicaid
the same except for billions spent on healthcare clinics around the country
the same?
|
Klukie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
55. Who will be allowed into the exchanges? |
|
will they be open to everyone?
|
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
67. Subsidies only exist if your income is below a certain level |
|
the House bill sets it at 400% of the poverty level - and that isn't a whole lot of money - and those subsidies decrease as income increase until they disappear completely. If you make a nickel over the FLP you don't get any kind of a subsidy, but you will be required to pay a premium only the government thinks you can afford and you will be on the hook for out of pocket expenses.
I know people with paying obscene amounts for "coverage" now who can't afford to get care - and they are people who won't qualify for subsidies. Nothing will change for them.
This scam will cut the number of uninsured by adding to the ranks of the underinsured.
|
CreekDog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #67 |
69. Again and again I was pointing out that without the bill, we have NO subsidies |
|
I didn't say they were the most wonderful thing.
I didn't say they were big enough or covered enough people.
I SIMPLY SAID THEY ARE THERE.
Because some of you are arguing as if they will be there without this bill but they won't.
Without this bill Medicaid expansion will not be there.
Without this bill eventual removal of differential pricing based on health will not happen.
Without this bill preexisting conditions can be excluded from coverage even if you can get insurance.
Without this bill, you may not be able to get coverage at all for any reason.
Without this bill, all the money for expansion of health care clinics across the nation may never happen --perhaps it's likely it will never happen.
You are arguing whether it's good enough, I'm arguing how good it is compared to doing without it altogether.
|
timeforpeace
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:09 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Obviously the cynical calculations have been made and they just don't care. Political expediency. |
krabigirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message |
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message |
26. A 25 year old making minimum wage will get Medicaid. However if s/he gets a 56 cent raise: |
|
S/he now makes too much for Medicaid and is required to purchase a health insurance plan where his/her share of the premium is $50 a month. We are talking about someone making $7.81 an hour. Check it for yourself: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx
|
ipaint
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
33. Is that the 60/40 plan, I wonder. |
|
40 percent of the bill is more than all but the rich afford can pay for a serious illness, a broken bone for the lower class will send you right to the shitty medicaid program.
Does anyone factor in that 40% owed as a result of medical bills when figuring that person's subsidies for the next year.
Where is the access to anything besides primary care for the lower classes? Medicaid for the poor is a disaster today. So we add 15-20 million more people. Brilliant move.
|
dflprincess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
36. And it assumes s/he lives in an area where they can find a doctor who will take Medicaid (nt) |
LynneSin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
57. 25 year old making minimum wage would be covered under their parents insurance |
|
Believe until they are 27.
THen there are conditions for mandating people buy insurance based on what people make.
|
Hello_Kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #57 |
91. My parents were dead by the time I was that age. |
|
And you only get covered under your parents' insurance if you qualify under the terms of the current policy, which in most cases means you have to be a full-time student and unmarried. That's assuming you still have parents and they have insurance.
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 01:51 PM
Response to Original message |
Jester Messiah
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message |
46. Nice scaremongering. Think anyone will go for it? |
|
The truth is that people who can't afford it will get subsidies. It's not exactly a hidden truth either. Maybe your troll-fu needs work.
|
Klukie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
64. enough to cover the cost of their premiums and their co-pays and deductibles? |
Ikonoklast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
You obviously would rather be outraged instead of educating yourself.
|
girl gone mad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:14 PM
Response to Original message |
50. I think a lot of people are going to simply choose to.. |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-17-10 02:16 PM by girl gone mad
ignore the mandates. They are certainly deeply unpopular.
The insurers have their tens of thousands of loopholes written into the bill. When a system is that heavily weighted toward one side, it ceases to be of any use to the other side. Just like there are now a sea of people walking away from their mortgages, many who would never have dreamed of doing such a thing 5 years ago, we will see people shrug off these types of rules that they did not agree to and which threaten their personal health and finances.
|
tavalon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 02:18 PM
Response to Original message |
51. Health Insurance Bailout |
|
Call it by its real name, please.
|
LynneSin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:16 PM
Response to Original message |
56. Imagine that there is stuff written in the law to deal with that |
|
Or did you skip over that part of the bill?
|
Klukie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #56 |
59. Who is eligible for the exchanges? |
|
When will they take effect? When will the mandate take effect?
|
Klukie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #56 |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-17-10 03:25 PM by Klukie
|
madville
(743 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message |
60. I predict SCOTUS throw out the mandate among other things in this bill |
|
I think it will go 6-3 in favor of the people not being forced to give money to a private corporation.
|
Inuca
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message |
63. Wouldn't MedicAid be covering these people under the new law? |
|
Or was that a trick question?
|
upi402
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #63 |
74. Medicaid covers low wage workers? n/t |
madville
(743 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message |
65. I think SCOTUS will rule in favor of the people |
|
I think it will go 6-3 in favor of the people not being forced to give money to a private corporation. Plus a few of them probably want to slap back at the President after being called out during the speech awhile back.
|
Maat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #65 |
|
This law school graduate agrees with you.
|
Kitty Herder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #65 |
68. The SCOTUS won't do a thing. |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-17-10 04:42 PM by Kitty Herder
They looooovve corporations and love screwing the people. This bill forces people to buy a very expensive product from large, powerful corporations. I don't see this Supreme Court deciding against that.
|
madville
(743 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #68 |
70. They owe Obama some payback |
|
No way the conservative justices vote with the administration, they will vote against mandates just to be against Obama. Then I would like to believe that the liberal justices would do the right thing for the right reasons and vote against the mandates as well.
|
eShirl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #70 |
73. Why, because he hurt their widdle feelings? |
madville
(743 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #73 |
78. They are petty and selfish, of course they go against the administration |
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #70 |
Kitty Herder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #70 |
85. I think their loyalty to the corporatations will trump hurt feelings in this case. nt |
yodoobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #65 |
|
The penalty for non-compliance will be a tax.
The power to tax for certain behaviors is well established and firmly rooted in precedent.
It may not even be heard by the Supreme Court.
|
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #65 |
104. The same SCOTUS that recently decided that money= free speech? nt |
Xenotime
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:06 PM
Response to Original message |
71. Bullshit. This will be the best thing that happens. |
|
And it proves to the rethugs we can get something done.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:11 PM
Response to Original message |
75. I don't think so. and if people who are as poor as I am get as good |
|
a deal on subsidized insurance as I have currently through the state, it should actually help quite a lot of people.
|
DCBob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:20 PM
Response to Original message |
77. There will be options for those who cant afford.. This bill is not meant to make poor people poorer. |
|
If there are some individuals who are adversely affected then modifications will be made.
|
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #77 |
81. 'then modifications will be made.' - when? How about if we lose the House? |
|
When will these modifications be forthcoming?
|
DCBob
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #81 |
83. I cant answer that... all I am saying is that no one supporting this bill... |
|
intends or wants to harm poor people.
|
sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #83 |
leftstreet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message |
84. I'm sure the Republicans will 'fix it later' when they take the midterms |
Bluebear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #84 |
troubledamerican
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-17-10 10:36 PM
Response to Original message |
89. But we WON -- LOL. It's a murder-suicide. Hilarious. |
|
"Yes, America, first I put the gun to your head, then I put the gun in my mouth"
Hello military coup.
|
New Dawn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 12:50 AM
Response to Original message |
Lorien
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:13 AM
Response to Original message |
99. The plan without the Public Option will certainly be our undoing. There's no doubt |
|
about that in my mind, which is why I think that it's critical to either demand the PO or kill the bill. I've had a lot of personal experience with "affordable" health care plans for the self employed. The deductibles START at 10k and they fight you tooth and nail on every claim. No one is proposing that we hold the providers of these "affordable" (under $600 a month) plans accountable. It's nothing more than extortion in my book; lots of cost with zero service in return. People will be angry enough about being forced to purchase a for-profit product; they'll be FURIOUS when they try to make a claim and are denied over and over. They'll feel used and victimized, and they'll hold the Democrats responsible for that. We won't see another majority like the one we currently have for decades.
|
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:17 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-18-10 10:20 AM by ProSense
"Now imagine a scenario in which they are forced to buy a healthcare plan that they can't afford the premium for, let alone the high decuctibles and co-pays on."
They get subsidies and/or a hardship exemption and are able, for the first time ever, to get the full measure of health care as millions of Americans enjoy.
That's not a scenario that will "blow up in our faces."
Oh and for those who don't want their money going to a for-profit plan, they'll have a choice of a non-profit, also for the first time ever.
|
kenny blankenship
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #101 |
105. non-profit also for the first time ever. Is there NOTHING you won't say? BLUE CROSS |
|
Say it. "BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD" Originally not for profit and still non-profit in some states - and some of the worst insurance you can buy.
|
LDB
(95 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #101 |
|
"They get subsidies and/or a hardship exemption"
With respect, I must strongly disagree with your comments here and others you've made previously as well.
Any sense of subsidy at all (if qualified) will essentially be applied toward paying for the insurance itself. This money goes to the insurance companies that supply this supposedly new, improved, and now, required insurance. This subsidized partial payment, along with the "insured's" hard earned money allows that buyer to purchase a minimally useful policy with absurdly high deductibles and subsequently high co-pays. This means that such an "insured" will still NEVER be able to afford health care. Simple numbers show about 5-10k in deductible per year plus the cost of the insurance per year comes out to anywhere between 6k and 12k per year before the insurance company even begins to cover anything that it doesn't outright deny. How does someone making 20 - 30k gross per year afford that?
"Full measure of health care as millions of Americans enjoy"?
This phrase honestly sounds like a sale-tag-line. However, if it describes virtually NO health care, then you are correct, I deem. We all know that situation applies to 47 million people in this country right now, and the 30 million-ish that the new HCR will "cover" will be spending their money for insurance policies and still not be able to afford the cost of the medical care. Oh, and what about that other pesky 17 million or so?
Non-profit? Profit? Absolutely irrelevant if an individual or family can't get critical medical treatment because they still can't pay for it despite being "insured".
Blow up in our faces? That's putting it mildly, I think.
|
TheFarseer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-18-10 10:59 AM
Response to Original message |
106. Yes, you are correct |
|
I didn't have health insurance for a number of years because I didn't have any money and I didn't feel like I needed it. As it turned out, I did not need it and it would have been a waste of my money. I would have been pissed as hell if I had to buy a policy for no particular reason when I can barely make rent.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 09:29 PM
Response to Original message |