CBO Makes Predictions re: ObamaCare

I have a medicare advantage plan by Humana Care, it covers ALL my medical fees. My wife has regular medicare and also has to pay for a supplemental plan that covers what medicare does not. I pay zero extra for my Humana plan. I have no desire to ever have Medicaid, as I am not a rider on the state's dime.

 

There just aren't as many jobs as there used to be. This gives people a chance to leave the labor force and make way for others who need to work.

 

Right you are, so many jobs have left the country, and only occasionally do you hear of some returning. I sure hope that improves.

 

I don't think it will improve, but Republicans won't stop yammering about welfare queens, either. They refuse to acknowledge that this country stopped being the land of 'opportunity' about 30 years ago.

 

Amen, and shame on them.

 

Once again, I'm not speaking to your specific situation, I'm speaking generally. And since your are on Medicare, why in the world are you trying to wrap Obamacare around your specific situation? If you are on Medicare, Obamacare is totally irrelevant to your situation.

And yes, it's possible to be on both Medicaid and Medicare if your income is low enough.

At least now I understand the reason for your confusion.

 

I wrap ObamaCare around my HEART because it saved me tons of money in 2010 right after it passed. No one would insure me after I retired because of my pre-existing condition. I applied for ObamaCare and after they saw copies of the insurerS letters of denial for that reason, they gave me a policy I could afford, or rather they let me choose from several they had to offer. I went to the doctor the second day after my policy started, and he said I needed immediate surgery, so he scheduled it for 2 days later and the insurance covered it exactly as advertised. They paid the hospital over $24K, and my deductible and co-pay amounted to $4K. So smoke that in your pipe, I am not confused, YOU ARE.

 

Well, as I pat that into my pipe and prepare to smoke it, it occurs to me that the Obamacare prohibition against discrimination for pre-existing conditions only became effective this year, 2014, So I'm guessing you got some sort of bridge plan that was included in the law? There was no "Obamacare" to apply for in 2010. But I agree that someone is confused.

 

Lets see if you expand Medicaid say in Florida 800k people pouring in $5.1 Billion a year even later with the 10% share after a few years wouldn't that create jobs in Medical Care, related areas (training, certifications, added jobs from the economic impact of that money $25.5 Billion plus annually)? And reduce suffering of the poor uninsured and help stabilize provider budgets since many coming in would have clear ability to pay something. Seems to me in my state with a serious budget surplus setting aside half to snag ten years of benefits say $400 million is a no brainer at getting over the decade $55 Billion plus the economic impact conservatively over the decade of $275 Billion plus.

Seems to me economics favors a positive long term impact there.

As for other issues States that opted in and worked with the law have fairly affordable rates based on the income of those looking.

 

Take a big drag on that pipe and if you are still conscious, go to this websire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

If you can actually read, this law was signed into effect on March 23, 2010 YES 2010. Then each state or region opened an office shortly thereafter, and I found one in New Orleans in August 2010. They are the ones who offered me the policy effective 9-1-2010, and I only paid one premium before my surgery. My premium went to the U.S government, so it was not paid to any insurance company, or bridge plan, whatever that is. How cold I have a "bridge" plan, when I had no insurance for 3 years preceding this time?

 

Hah! You are hilarious! Unintentionally so perhaps, but hilarious all the same.

What you are talking about is a bridge plan (to bridge the period of time until Obamacare required pre-existing conditions to be covered; 2014 not 2010). It was the fund set up to finance people, such as yourself, who had pre-existing conditions and couldn't get insurance. I apologize if the terminology confused you. You did not actually have to be standing under a bridge to get that coverage.

 

Whatever you say, BUT I had to give proof that I had been denied, pay one month's premium (~$450), then I got to see the Dr. once for an exam, second for surgery, and third, a one week follow-up. Not bad for their paying over $24K, and my total was ~$4k, and not even a second premium. I finally saw the Dr. again last week, over 3 years since the last time, for a check-up but that was paid by my Humana Medicare.

 

Gotta admit, I didn't think there were any libruls in Mississippi.

 

Again must respond to this fictitious blurb of yours, saying that my plan was a "bridge" plan. I had no insurance for over 3 years before I got this ObamaCare savior plan BECAUSE both insurers in my state had refused me coverage and numerous times. So there was no "existing" plan or insurer to "bridge" from. They wouldn't insure me before ObamaCare, nor immediately after, so my check was to the U.S. treasury and not some private insurer who wouldn't insure me before.

 

There are many of us here, with the most be unregistered or non-participating, and when I moved here, the Democrats still had the governorship. But times change and now the Republican governor and House refused again yesterday to pass the Medicaid expansion. Think how many millions of the working poor are without the care they need. Maybe times will change again soon, and this option will still be on the table.

 

NOTE: this is great that this system works for you.
there is still nothing to show that it couldn't be set up to work
based on VOLUNTARY participation or other means of funding instead of federal insurance mandates.

this reminds me of people who think their religion is the only correct way to understand God

God can be real, proven or not, but doesn't mean your way is the only way to get there.
And like God, you can be 100% convinced and have proof to show of God,
but still cannot abuse federal gov to impose your way on other people. They are NOT required
to accept your proof or even look at it, even if you are 100% right and they are wrong.
other people of other beliefs are not required legally to justify why they believe differently under penalty of tax penalty.

with ACA, if all the people pushing for it paid for it themselves, or by arranging other means of
saving resources so it could be directed to pay for this plan without imposing on others,
that would be fine. you could keep all the same benefits or more, but without imposing mandates that aren't necessarily the only way to make things work.

the fact ACA still doesn't cover all people and all costs
shows in itself that other systems are needed. so why punish people for investing resources into those other systems when they are needed anyway?

 

Might I suggest a simple option say for incomes up to 250% of the Federal Poverty line just as a talking point if your not insured place people on Medicaid and Federalize the whole program cutting funding to the states for the uninsured and poor. Have out of pocket costs based on income from very low like now to higher levels the closer you get to the cap. Taxes in place and a payroll tax could fund it with the addition of Federal funding withdrawn for indigent care. And if its 100% Federalized its legal to expand it to all states and territories. One could add a payroll tax to boost this if needed and add funding to providers to match Medicare.

 

"Voluntary" will destroy the principal that the insurance business was designed under. Without millions of healthy youth paying some minimal premium amount for possible but not likely coverage, there are'nt sufficient dollars in the system to cover the needs of those with the greatest needs, the elderly. This may sound unfair to you, but it is NOT. Over time, the youth who is paying but rarely using the plan, actually become the elderly, and their higher than average costs, now that they are older, are absorbed by the youth of their day, and this pattern repeats itself "ad infinitum", which is what will perpetuate this program forward.

The fact that the ACA doesn't cover everyone is BECAUSE the majority of Americans are covered by their employers. However, they still benefit from the ACA, in all the positive changes that the ACA made all insurers adopt, like no cancellations for exceeding some imaginary lifetime cap, or not insuring pre-existing conditions. It is because employers have chosen to include health insurance in their benefit packages that this is the way things are. However, IF employers were to all stop insuring their workers, the ACA would gladly accept their applications for individualized insurance. Thus the ACA COULD end up covering all people, but I doubt I will happen anytime soon.

 

I think we've already established you were unfamiliar with the terminology.

 

I was unfamiliar with YOUR terminology, but I am still very adamant that it WAS ObamaCare that I was on because of the simple reason that I wrote the check to the Federal government, not to any self-absorbed insurance company that you claimed was offering the bridge insurance. If you would like to place a sizable bet that I didn't write the check to the Feds, let's bet, and I will provide a copy of the cancelled check.

 

I disagree Mike. there are plenty of ways to encourage people to generate funds to pay for insurance and health care freely without mandates imposed by feds.

if you are going to mandate insurance, why not mandate
1. spiritual healing to reduce costs and stretch health care resources to serve more people
2. building teaching hospitals and medical education to serve more people through public health
services, as part of student course credits or work study or internships to cover loans
3. everyone invest in real estate using models that generate millions in sustainable renewable income
so people can afford not only their insurance but also the cost of health care not covered by insurance
so they pay for these freely without relying on govt; if they borrow, they pay back over time using sustainable finance
4. requiring costs of crimes and corruption to be paid back to taxpayers so those resources are used to pay
not just for health care, but also education and housing
5. one guy came up with a free market plan where taxes or expenses we already pay
are set up to pay costs of insurance or health care, where people are rewarded with free choice,
not penalized or forced by mandates.

whichever systems work for people, they will naturally choose without mandates
all the cost effective systems I've studied all work by voluntary participation.
the only reason the IRS and fed work is by consent; otherwise these are not fully constitutional either and could easily be voided if everyone agreed to do so.
especially when policies involve something faith based this must be by the people's consent or else it is imposing on the beliefs of dissenters.

what I mean by not covering everything
even when you buy insurance, it doesn't cover all costs.

and don't forget, there are a lot of other things people need to pay for,
like paying to replace their house where insurance doesn't cover
or their car, or funerals or other things that people will put before paying for health insurance.

you can't just take health care out of context with all the costs
and try to mandate that. remember with individuals, when you mandate
that we pay for insurance, that means we cannot use that same money
to pay for other things that may be more critical to us at the time.

And use other means to pay for health care besides just insurance.

One man is suing over ACA for his natural right to pay for health care
using all his own money, and not be forced by law to buy insurance.

if you are going to start mandating HOW people reduce or cover costs of health care,
again, what is stopping the govt from mandating spiritual healing, or investing in
real estate as generating more money per dollar spent than if this was spent on rent, etc.
so THAT profit could be used to pay for health care. you are talking about managing
how individuals spend our money, as if insurance is the only way. that is what is bizarre.

especially when we don't let prolife people mandate their beliefs through govt,
or let people pass laws banning sex outside of marriage to prevent problems.

I find it disturbing that people don't respect or trust each other's free choice.
why do liberals trust people withthe chioce of abortion which potentially causes great risk or harm
but don't trust people with the chioce to buy insurance or pay for health care in other ways,
which ISN't a crime. if you end up in debt over helath care, there are ways you can pay it back.
if you abort a baby and change your mind, you cannot undo the damage. why is that free choice
to abort a baby protected by law, but free choice of health care is penalized?

when prolife peopel care for the babies and women they want to help, they raise the money
and awareness themselves, by donations and investments in longterm solutions.
they arent allowed to legislate or mandate this through federal govt.

why is it that prochoice people who want more people's health care costs to be covered
don't set up a red cross or hospital system like other people have by free market,
but expect to force this through govt "only by mandating insurance" as the only way to pay for it.

also, how can you claim to want to cover health care
but expect everyone else to pay into YOUR idea for paying for it.

if Jihadists believed world peace could be obtained by voting them into power
and they would pay for everything, woudl they have the right to use majority rule to
impose THEIR way for paying for everything?

I think you would ask for PROOF and ask to CHOOSE to participate or not.
that is an extreme case, but the point is consent of the governed which is the basis of lawful social contracts.

it is plainly against natural laws to sign someone's name to a contract they didn't agree to
and expect them to pay under those terms. goes against human nature. all laws works by free will to some degree.
and here people have clearly dissented and don't share the same beliefs, so that cannot be legislated against their will
without violating constitutional principles and due process of law. thank you for being thoughtful and patient in discussing this complex situation.

 

Emily, I sure disagree with you suggestions. With voluntary participation as you suggest, where is the money for all the sick and elderly healthcare going to come from? And as these people die off, and the next generation ages into this group, who will pay for their care? It is a lose, lose situation. The money will run out in the early years of each generation's aging. And all the people pushing for the ACA are mostly the administration, because they were smart enough to realize that 35-40 million Americans were without healthcare. And just like for ALL other gainfully employed Americans, they can keep their private insurance plans, plans that now have all the benefits of the ACA, as I have listed before.

 

My only familiarity with the state is a couple weeks I spent in a hospital in Biloxi as a youngster. I remember having a great view of the Gulf. I think of Mississippi as a place where a lot of whites sold their souls to Republicans over a single issue. I also think of "O Brother Where Art Thou", the best movie ever made.

 

I never claimed insurance companies were the ones offering the bridge insurance. I'm not sure why you are so confused.

 

There is no way to force people to opt into the ACA if you are not in an exempt status, insured by an employer and opt out no one is making you enroll in a plan or even expanded Medicaid all that happens is you pay a penalty to the government in your income tax refund if any. No prison, no gun to the head etc. so it IS in fact a CHOICE in every case.