• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

2&2, Are you talking about the SHOP exchange or the individual marketplace when you say "federal exchange?" Seems obvious why you'd have different requirements for individual plans and group plans.
 
Why? If the purpose is to impose a baseline level of required coverages, then why wouldn't those coverages apply across the board?
 
LOL that 2&2's family has to get dental coverage.
 
The representative group plan covers a child. The representative individual plan does not. Dental coverage is an essential health benefit for kids but not adults. Seems logical to require it for group plans but not individual.
 
WFU71 said:
Generalize much? I'd bet rj, by himself, has noted the millions of new insured at least 50 times in this thread.

I'd like to think everyone who has commented believes insuring more citizens is a good thing. That doesn't mean the ACA is beyond criticism. It was poorly designed, poorly rolled out and the American public was repeatedly lied to about some aspects of it.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's my point, RJ by himself, out of 10s of pages of discussion (bitching) has brought up the main purpose of the ACA. Considering that insuring the uninsured was the main point of the act, any prolonged discussion of progress without mentioning that is off track. Please though, continue on pretending that the ACA was some fever dream invention of Obama, and bitching about all it's flaws as if they were personal slights directed at you by the President himself. I would just ask that before you throw your support behind any candidate who is dead set on repealing Obamacare, you consider the people that it was meant to help.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
The representative group plan covers a child. The representative individual plan does not. Dental coverage is an essential health benefit for kids but not adults. Seems logical to require it for group plans but not individual.
Click to expand...

No, I have several individual plans within our group policy.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Well there you have it, folks. Frightening stuff.
Click to expand...

Specifically, what are you frightened of happening to you and your family?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I legitimately asking. I am not frightened by the idea. I hate paying bills too, and I also hate being told what to do. Still, I am not frightened by what ph said and if I should be I want to know why. This fright seems to drive a lot of the opposition to this as well as other liberal and collectivist ideas wrt to economics and I can't seem to find the fear that you have found. What am I missing?
 
WakeandBake said:
Specifically, what are you frightened of happening to you and your family?

I'm not saying you are wrong, I legitimately asking. I am not frightened by the idea. I hate paying bills too, and I also hate being told what to do. Still, I am not frightened by what ph said and if I should be I want to know why. This fright seems to drive a lot of the opposition to this as well as other liberal and collectivist ideas wrt to economics and I can't seem to find the fear that you have found. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Ph's opinion about the extent of choice and autonomy we are allowed to have is 108% dumb, but points for his candor.
 
jhmd must believe in self-diagnosis.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Yes, that's my point, RJ by himself, out of 10s of pages of discussion (bitching) has brought up the main purpose of the ACA. Considering that insuring the uninsured was the main point of the act, any prolonged discussion of progress without mentioning that is off track. Please though, continue on pretending that the ACA was some fever dream invention of Obama, and bitching about all it's flaws as if they were personal slights directed at you by the President himself. I would just ask that before you throw your support behind any candidate who is dead set on repealing Obamacare, you consider the people that it was meant to help.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it isn't mentioned because it was already conceded. Before implementation, it was well known that the vast majority of newly insured would come from the expansion of Medicaid. I think the focus is appropriately on all the stupid government mandates, general incompetence in attempting to wrangle the health care industry, and what that means for people who were already perfectly content with their level of coverage and now are paying more or having to shop around..
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Perhaps it isn't mentioned because it was already conceded. Before implementation, it was well known that the vast majority of newly insured would come from the expansion of Medicaid. I think the focus is appropriately on all the stupid government mandates, general incompetence in attempting to wrangle the health care industry, and what that means for people who were already perfectly content with their level of coverage and now are paying more or having to shop around..
Click to expand...

And yet even though this was "well known" most southern states still chose not to expand Medicaid yet chose to bitch about the parts which were actually contentious while doing absolutely nothing to address what most knew. Interesting choice. Blame the bad parts of the law while simultaneously failing to implementing the good parts. Damn that's a winning strategy!
 
jhmd2000 said:
Wait, Obama took away all bad choices? LOL@that.

R.I.P. My body, my choice. 1973-2012. We hardly knew ya.
Click to expand...

Well he gets blamed for everything, may as well just turn it into "Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING now good or bad" right? I'm with it.

Got an extra piece of bacon on my sandwich. Thanks Obama!

Stubbed my toe this morning getting out of bad. Damn you Obama.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Wait, Obama took away all bad choices? LOL@that.

R.I.P. My body, my choice. 1973-2012. We hardly knew ya.
Click to expand...

:cool: Seriously, the plans that were deemed substandard that are no longer for sale. Isn't this what you are frightened of, being forced to choose a health plan that meets the mandated level of coverage instead of the ability to buy a bad one or no plan at all?
 
WakeandBake said:
:cool: Seriously, the plans that were deemed substandard that are no longer for sale. Isn't this what you are frightened of, being forced to choose a health plan that meets the mandated level of coverage instead of the ability to buy a bad one or no plan at all?
Click to expand...

If he doesn't want to buy insurance or wants to buy a shitty one he thinks he should be able to - even if that shifts the burden to the taxpayer.

I haven't seen many projections addressing this, but I can't imagine that the increase in costs (that weren't going to happen without a change in the health care model anyway) attributable to the ACA could possibly exceed the costs of continuing to have a massive, massive pool of uninsured people - be it by choice or be it by falling into a coverage gap. Does anyone have information on this?
 
I'm all for choice and individual freedom and letting markets work - in contexts where they work well. Health care is not such a market. Health care is supposed to be evidence-based and scientific. Instead, we have people in this country who refuse to vaccinate their kids (putting all of the rest of us at risk) because Jenny freaking McCarthy told them it causes autism. We have a pharma industry that spends billions on advertisements to convince us that THEIR medicine is the one we need, so we will badger our doctors to prescribe it, while at the same time marketing those medicines to doctors, all without regard to whether the drug flavor of the month is any better than a generic or OTC remedy. We give 93 year old men with dementia hip replacement surgery, because the doctors convinced the family that if they didn't do "everything possible" to help Dad they were bad people, then act surprised when that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra procedures and treatment to deal with the totally predictable adverse health impacts (in case you can't guess, this happened to someone I know). The list of this crap goes on and on. Free market medicine is bankrupting this country.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Perhaps it isn't mentioned because it was already conceded. Before implementation, it was well known that the vast majority of newly insured would come from the expansion of Medicaid. I think the focus is appropriately on all the stupid government mandates, general incompetence in attempting to wrangle the health care industry, and what that means for people who were already perfectly content with their level of coverage and now are paying more or having to shop around..
Click to expand...
If that point is truly conceded, how do we put the genie back in the bottle if the ACA is repealed? Aren't all those complaining about it on this thread also supporting politicians who wish to repeal it? I can't think of any politicians who are campaigning on the premise of just "fixing" Obamacare. I don't have my head in the sand, I know people have lost coverage or had their OOP and rates go up - my moms advantage plan was canceled. My support for the ACA stems from the unlikelyhood of anything better being passed. It may be unfair to define the argument as for or against, but those are really the only two options in this political climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top