41–50 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the law was supposed to encourage preventative care. Not offering at least one low cost doctor visit seems to betray that goal.
Health insurance is supposed to keep you from going bankrupt when your appendix bursts.
Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
I thought the law was supposed to encourage preventative care. Not offering at least one low cost doctor visit seems to betray that goal.
Look I am the first to be upset at how much healthcare.gov management and dev sucked. But I don't give a darn how many signed up on the first day. I care how many sign up by December 31st. Then we can discuss enrollment problems.
No, the date is Dec. 15th. If your one of the apparently millions whose plan didn't meet the new guidelines then you must sign up by Dec. 15th.
Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
$5,000 deductible? My PPO had a $2,500 deductible and I thought that was insanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what they are referring to is the impact of the individual mandate. Sure you'd expect people to rush into the free option, but everyone who is uninsured and doesn't qualify for Medicaid will have have to pay a penalty if they don't buy insurance.
Pay 1.0-2.5% tax penalty for not having Insurance Pay 10-15% of your pre-tax income for a plan under Obamacare I don't think it's going to work out that great.
This, my friend, is called adverse selection.
Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…
The case the administration is making is that these old plans had invidious characteristics such as lifetime spending limits and missing "essential" no-deductible coverage for preventative services and birth control. Not sure whether that's an accurate claim for the pre-ACA plans you listed. Presumably ACA's no-deductible requirement applies to the new plan, so while you might pay for irregular doctor's visits, your…
Coupled with the claim that plans based on the new floor for coverage would be at least affordable. Which many are finding invidious because they can't afford the replacement policies that are initially offered by their existing insurers. With all subsidy calculations tied to the Federal site, those who might get a subsidy aren't able to find out for sure without generally extreme levels of effort, although subsidy calculators are available, like the Kaiser Foundation's: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your assertion is that Massachusetts has an unusual aversion to signing up in the first month that the rest of the nation lacks?
My assertion is that the comparison made is not a good comparison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My assertion is that the comparison made is not a good comparison.
Google the following: "was obamacare based on romneycare". Obama says yes, Romney says no. In this case I believe Romney.
Politifact has a ruling: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like taxes, this will likely be a largely individual endeavor. Maybe there will be PSAs, but their effectiveness is questionable. Many people (and the politicians who signed it!) don't know the enrollment requirements, subsequent responsibilities, and consequences for failure to comply. Everyone is fighting over the validity and constitutionality of this law, instead of informing the public about what they need to do…
I think civil disobedience is appropriate, and that people should resist compliance and urge others to resist. I believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the law was passed in a party-line vote using shady Senate tactics. Further, we now know that President Obama flat-out knowingly lied when he told the public "if you like your plan you can keep it." The law needs to be delayed so that Congres…
http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-herita...
It was essentially a bipartisan reform bill. Had Bush proposed the bill, Republicans would likely have voted en masse for it.
As for the Constitutionality of it, the Supreme Court disagrees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think civil disobedience is appropriate, and that people should resist compliance and urge others to resist. I believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the law was passed in a party-line vote using shady Senate tactics. Further, we now know that President Obama flat-out knowingly lied when he told the public "if you like your plan you can keep it." The law needs to be delayed so that Congres…
Obamacare's individual mandate comes from the Heritage Foundation - that's right, the organization now run by the Tea Party. http://americablog.com/2013/10/original-1989-document-herita... It was essentially a bipartisan reform bill. Had Bush proposed the bill, Republicans would likely have voted en masse for it. As for the Constitutionality of it, the Supreme Court disagrees.