Obamacare has brung up much debate on all sides of the political spectrum. The website doesn't work and they would be better off just scrapping it and starting over. What are your opinions on this matter? From my analysis of this situation Obama is trying to make health care into a facist corporate government monopoly.
Obamacare
- Thread starter WhiteShoeQueen
- Start date
Speaking a-politically and purely from a practical standpoint the system as it stands is close to nonfunctional. It takes months for an application to be processed, and dozens of hours on the phone to get a clear picture of what's going on, and that's speaking from Massachusetts, a state that largely had a functional system in place before Obamacare came through. Its an endemic issue though, I know of people having problems across the country.
Meh... personal experience only is mixed. I myself do not qualify for Obamacare,or more accurately I would be stupid to try it. I get it from my workplace and have for years. I have little in the way of medical conditions except being overweight, and some inherited high blood pressure (not environmental or lifestyle caused, I went on blood pressure medication at 26)
But went through it with my mother, whom has a slew of various pre-existing conditions, including cancer last year.
She went through a 3rd party company to work through the Obamacare process. The company does not give medical insurance themselves, but acts as a go between for people to find insurance. They existed prior to Obamacare, they've been doing it for far longer than that, a number of years.
The government website had/has multiple issues. Many are publicly known, some are downright hidden unless you happen to hit them. This company had problems with a lot of its customers when going through the government site, not for helping the customers get insurance per se, but in helping the customers find the list of qualifying plans and what their subsidy would actually be.
Her particular situation was complicated by the fact the site has problems with anything other than plain vanilla cases in regards to health, taxes, and living location. For example at first it refused to accept her at all and process the claim because currently she is living with me, but owns still her old house, as the addresses were different.
This company had to get on the phone with a rep a couple times to get these issues straightened out.
Now that she has actually been on it some 4 months, she *still* has to call in her monthly payments to the insurance company, not because there is a problem with the insurance per se, but the double backlash of the insurance company going through the site for the subsidy, combined with the huge influx of members because of it, has insured that the billing process is horribly out of cycle. Meaning if she waits for the bill to come to the house, it is already too late to actually pay it.
Now, having said all that, the insurance plan she got on, actually is pretty good, and while before the subsidy is comparatively high, given her conditions is reasonable, and with the subsidy, is quite affordable for her.
While the 3rd party my mother contracted was actually pretty nice, the fact she had to go that route at all just to have a person for oversight and act as a mediator or problem solver for the site speaks pretty badly for the competence of the people running the site.
IMHO, what the government *should* have done, was either contract or partner up with a known health insurance site specialist to at least set up the site, ideally a independent one, yes they do exist. Such as the long running site eHealthInsurance.COM, whom I used for finding health insurance back in 2008 when I was out of work. There are a few other companies to come to mind that probably could have done it as well.
Are there better/worse experiences... I've heard there are. Do I think it works... as said, mixed bag, I cannot argue my mother got a good health insurance plan, but the process was not remotely smooth or easy. The benefit of a government site sounds great, but is defeated by real life experience requiring call ins.
But went through it with my mother, whom has a slew of various pre-existing conditions, including cancer last year.
She went through a 3rd party company to work through the Obamacare process. The company does not give medical insurance themselves, but acts as a go between for people to find insurance. They existed prior to Obamacare, they've been doing it for far longer than that, a number of years.
The government website had/has multiple issues. Many are publicly known, some are downright hidden unless you happen to hit them. This company had problems with a lot of its customers when going through the government site, not for helping the customers get insurance per se, but in helping the customers find the list of qualifying plans and what their subsidy would actually be.
Her particular situation was complicated by the fact the site has problems with anything other than plain vanilla cases in regards to health, taxes, and living location. For example at first it refused to accept her at all and process the claim because currently she is living with me, but owns still her old house, as the addresses were different.
This company had to get on the phone with a rep a couple times to get these issues straightened out.
Now that she has actually been on it some 4 months, she *still* has to call in her monthly payments to the insurance company, not because there is a problem with the insurance per se, but the double backlash of the insurance company going through the site for the subsidy, combined with the huge influx of members because of it, has insured that the billing process is horribly out of cycle. Meaning if she waits for the bill to come to the house, it is already too late to actually pay it.
Now, having said all that, the insurance plan she got on, actually is pretty good, and while before the subsidy is comparatively high, given her conditions is reasonable, and with the subsidy, is quite affordable for her.
While the 3rd party my mother contracted was actually pretty nice, the fact she had to go that route at all just to have a person for oversight and act as a mediator or problem solver for the site speaks pretty badly for the competence of the people running the site.
IMHO, what the government *should* have done, was either contract or partner up with a known health insurance site specialist to at least set up the site, ideally a independent one, yes they do exist. Such as the long running site eHealthInsurance.COM, whom I used for finding health insurance back in 2008 when I was out of work. There are a few other companies to come to mind that probably could have done it as well.
Are there better/worse experiences... I've heard there are. Do I think it works... as said, mixed bag, I cannot argue my mother got a good health insurance plan, but the process was not remotely smooth or easy. The benefit of a government site sounds great, but is defeated by real life experience requiring call ins.
Basically my advice, based on the experience my mother had, to anyone wanting Obamacare and think they qualify, or really even just wanting a insurance plan through anyone and are having difficulty getting it yourself... go the 3rd party route. They walk you through it, have been through it countless times for other clients, and generally at this point should know the pitfalls, limitations, and bugs... they know whom to call if issues, and know how to describe them far better than nearly anyone else.
It is not easy, straightforward, nor painless going through that site unless they've magically fixed everything... but it does seem to work, and assuming you qualify does give you a plan and a subsidy in the end.
It is not easy, straightforward, nor painless going through that site unless they've magically fixed everything... but it does seem to work, and assuming you qualify does give you a plan and a subsidy in the end.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Universal Medicare is indeed a good thing that should be aimed for, but the problem is trying to do it through the government as things currently are is borked and just plain asking for trouble (And that's not even getting into the money side of things). Medicare has much the same issues to this day which I can confirm directly with personal experience through my grandma's numerous problems, and from what I've heard Medicaid is much the same in a lot of cases, though obviously that's more of a state thing so it apparently varies from state to state.
I knew this was going to be a complete mess from the start, said as much when they first started bringing it up in fact, and while they'll likely clean up a lot of the current issues with time since that's quite simply unacceptable bullshit, the system's still going to be absurdly fundamentally flawed down the line by association because Medicare had been around for freaking years and they still haven't fixed all the Bureaucracy issues with that in all that time. A much bigger system affecting more people with much more varied issues they have to cross reference and confirm in general? It's going to be a paper trail nightmare for years to come. And we still haven't even gone into the funding of the damn thing yet.
See when it comes to the government, whenever they do big changes like this you should just openly expect it to be borked from the start. Quite honestly those guys have never had any sort of clue of what they're doing, and to compound the issue they also take forever to actually getting around to properly fixing it. Unless it affects them directly, then they all get off their asses and do shit. :sweat2:
I knew this was going to be a complete mess from the start, said as much when they first started bringing it up in fact, and while they'll likely clean up a lot of the current issues with time since that's quite simply unacceptable bullshit, the system's still going to be absurdly fundamentally flawed down the line by association because Medicare had been around for freaking years and they still haven't fixed all the Bureaucracy issues with that in all that time. A much bigger system affecting more people with much more varied issues they have to cross reference and confirm in general? It's going to be a paper trail nightmare for years to come. And we still haven't even gone into the funding of the damn thing yet.
See when it comes to the government, whenever they do big changes like this you should just openly expect it to be borked from the start. Quite honestly those guys have never had any sort of clue of what they're doing, and to compound the issue they also take forever to actually getting around to properly fixing it. Unless it affects them directly, then they all get off their asses and do shit. :sweat2:
Medical care at hospitals is so expensive because they don't get reimbursement from a large number of their patients. This leads to the patients that do pay paying exorbitant amounts to cover simple procedures - if the hospital didn't do it, they'd be bankrupt. There are a number of other contributing factors - the endless lawsuits, the high cost of hiring healthcare providers, the regulatory hurdles - that also contribute. The idea behind national healthcare is that costs actually go down because all procedures get paid for.
Nationalized health insurance is all about bringing down insurance costs because you force young, healthy people who otherwise wouldn't get insurance to purchase it. That changes the pool of healthcare applicants from "likely to get sick" to "might get sick."
And I have no personal experience with Obamacare because I'm on Army Tricare. My brother is on Obamacare, and it's better and cheaper than his old insurance, but we haven't actually used it for anything yet.
Nationalized health insurance is all about bringing down insurance costs because you force young, healthy people who otherwise wouldn't get insurance to purchase it. That changes the pool of healthcare applicants from "likely to get sick" to "might get sick."
And I have no personal experience with Obamacare because I'm on Army Tricare. My brother is on Obamacare, and it's better and cheaper than his old insurance, but we haven't actually used it for anything yet.
I just signed up for Obamacare last night. It took like 2 hours and they hooked me up with a plan with Blue Cross for about $130 a month, which is less than a fourth of the cheapest price I could get before Obamacare, and it provides vastly better benefits. For the first time in my life I will have my own health insurance.
I have lots of genetic health issues, so I'm well aware of the travesty that is our health system.
O-Care hasn't been as big of a snafu as it has in other state because Minnesota has its own independent portal. Quite a few states do. It's not great, but better than the fed's. Ironically, I don't qualify for medical assistance due to the wife making just enough so I'm getting regular insurance, not assistance. But I can still buy regular through the portal or through insurance companies' web sites if I choose.
In MN we used to have an insurance plan called Comprehensive Health. It was mandated by the State Gov't but is not run by it. It's run by one of the MN med insurance companies. Because it is basically a pool for uninsurable patients, it used to cost me at least 125 percent of the going rate for regular market insurance. But, it goes away this year because with O-Care as it's now redundant and overpriced.
This is where O-Care helps people like me. I'm able to switch insurance providers because the law says they can't discriminate against me for my health, which is what they were blatantly doing beforehand. They'd hear I had Crohn's and go, "Nope! Won't touch you! Goodbye!" It's important to note that for a long time already in MN all med insurance providers HAD to be non-profit. Despite the fact that they aren't around to make money, costs were still really high here. I spent one early morning in the ER and one day in the hospital last August and without insurance it would have cost me $8000 dollars. EIGHT. THOUSAND. AMERICAN. DOLLARS. Absolutely Fucking Insane. Anybody that believes that our medical system was okay before needs to really have their head examined.
Now that I've switched, I have much better coverage and I pay over $1200 a year less in insurance, and pay $2500 less a year in deductible.
The point in the law is that a bigger pool of people is better able to spread the costs, and I agree. But what healthy people don't realize is that a simple broken bone and infection could bankrupt them. Or appendicitis. How many have $10,000-$12,000 laying around for a medical bill like that? Because most don't, they just walk away from the bill. Now, it's up to the hospital to charge more to recoup the costs, and the vicious cycle continues. That's where the required insurance part of O-Care steps in for those that are healthy and don't believe they need it. Now they're covered in case some idiot T-Bones their car and sends them to the hospital for months.
Most people that are against O-Care are too healthy (and lucky) to have a proper grasp of just how bad our system is borked up on the cost front.
I'd also like to point out that the prescription med industries are blood sucking vultures that charge WAY too much for their medicines, but know we'll pay it if we want to live. Free market right? Pay up or die, literally. That's where I believe that other countries that have socialized medicine are WAY beyond us. People bristle at having government sticking their nose in, but when it comes to people dying because they can't afford medicines in a 1st world country because of greedy pharmaceutical execs looking for profits, then we have a problem.
I admit that there are a LOT of complexities behind the cost structures, including a culture of lawsuits propagated by lawyers looking to make a buck at every wail of an ambulance siren. You just have to see cable TV here and listen to the 235th class action lawsuit commercial in that one hour show to get a grasp of how bad that's getting. Malpractice insurance for doctors can be an almost crushing cost for them.
On top of that, the AMA (American Medical Association) limits how many doctors can be in the field so that the market isn't saturated. This is basically the DeBeers (diamond importers) effect in healthcare, where controlling the market drives up prices.
There's a LOT of problems in our system, and as big (and mis-implemented) as the O-Care bill is, it's only the start.
O-Care hasn't been as big of a snafu as it has in other state because Minnesota has its own independent portal. Quite a few states do. It's not great, but better than the fed's. Ironically, I don't qualify for medical assistance due to the wife making just enough so I'm getting regular insurance, not assistance. But I can still buy regular through the portal or through insurance companies' web sites if I choose.
In MN we used to have an insurance plan called Comprehensive Health. It was mandated by the State Gov't but is not run by it. It's run by one of the MN med insurance companies. Because it is basically a pool for uninsurable patients, it used to cost me at least 125 percent of the going rate for regular market insurance. But, it goes away this year because with O-Care as it's now redundant and overpriced.
This is where O-Care helps people like me. I'm able to switch insurance providers because the law says they can't discriminate against me for my health, which is what they were blatantly doing beforehand. They'd hear I had Crohn's and go, "Nope! Won't touch you! Goodbye!" It's important to note that for a long time already in MN all med insurance providers HAD to be non-profit. Despite the fact that they aren't around to make money, costs were still really high here. I spent one early morning in the ER and one day in the hospital last August and without insurance it would have cost me $8000 dollars. EIGHT. THOUSAND. AMERICAN. DOLLARS. Absolutely Fucking Insane. Anybody that believes that our medical system was okay before needs to really have their head examined.
Now that I've switched, I have much better coverage and I pay over $1200 a year less in insurance, and pay $2500 less a year in deductible.
The point in the law is that a bigger pool of people is better able to spread the costs, and I agree. But what healthy people don't realize is that a simple broken bone and infection could bankrupt them. Or appendicitis. How many have $10,000-$12,000 laying around for a medical bill like that? Because most don't, they just walk away from the bill. Now, it's up to the hospital to charge more to recoup the costs, and the vicious cycle continues. That's where the required insurance part of O-Care steps in for those that are healthy and don't believe they need it. Now they're covered in case some idiot T-Bones their car and sends them to the hospital for months.
Most people that are against O-Care are too healthy (and lucky) to have a proper grasp of just how bad our system is borked up on the cost front.
I'd also like to point out that the prescription med industries are blood sucking vultures that charge WAY too much for their medicines, but know we'll pay it if we want to live. Free market right? Pay up or die, literally. That's where I believe that other countries that have socialized medicine are WAY beyond us. People bristle at having government sticking their nose in, but when it comes to people dying because they can't afford medicines in a 1st world country because of greedy pharmaceutical execs looking for profits, then we have a problem.
I admit that there are a LOT of complexities behind the cost structures, including a culture of lawsuits propagated by lawyers looking to make a buck at every wail of an ambulance siren. You just have to see cable TV here and listen to the 235th class action lawsuit commercial in that one hour show to get a grasp of how bad that's getting. Malpractice insurance for doctors can be an almost crushing cost for them.
On top of that, the AMA (American Medical Association) limits how many doctors can be in the field so that the market isn't saturated. This is basically the DeBeers (diamond importers) effect in healthcare, where controlling the market drives up prices.
There's a LOT of problems in our system, and as big (and mis-implemented) as the O-Care bill is, it's only the start.
Did some research.
I'm bellow the poverty line and my income is unpredictable because of I mostly work temp jobs with large amounts of down time between them.
It turns out I don't qualify for medicare in my home state of texas and that Obamacare only offers supplements to those above the poverty line. I can only assume it's because they intended for the poor to be covered by medicade. But Medicade doesn't cover the poor, they tried to institute reforms but apparently the Republicans were being assholes like usual and forced the Supreme Court to rule that states could opt out of it. Texas apparently turned down an offer by the government to foot the bill for the reform until 2016 so that the poor can get Medicade.
I'm bellow the poverty line and my income is unpredictable because of I mostly work temp jobs with large amounts of down time between them.
It turns out I don't qualify for medicare in my home state of texas and that Obamacare only offers supplements to those above the poverty line. I can only assume it's because they intended for the poor to be covered by medicade. But Medicade doesn't cover the poor, they tried to institute reforms but apparently the Republicans were being assholes like usual and forced the Supreme Court to rule that states could opt out of it. Texas apparently turned down an offer by the government to foot the bill for the reform until 2016 so that the poor can get Medicade.
Yeah I heard that the government offered to completely pay for the Medicade expansion in each state but many of the reddest states have tried to sabotage Obamacare by refusing the free money and refused to build their own state healthcare marketplace exchanges, purely out of spite. Republicans really fucking hate poor people.
[Edit] Wow, turns out I've got a premium health care credit because neither of my part time jobs offers me health care coverage. Instead of $130 a month, I'll be paying a premium of $5 dollars a month. With 0 deductible and $750 max yearly out-of-pocket.
I think I love Obamacare.
[Edit] Wow, turns out I've got a premium health care credit because neither of my part time jobs offers me health care coverage. Instead of $130 a month, I'll be paying a premium of $5 dollars a month. With 0 deductible and $750 max yearly out-of-pocket.
I think I love Obamacare.
Unfortunately, who can qualify for the states Medicaid benefits has changed in many states in order to try and control costs. I know that Arizona stopped covering adult males as new applicants as of a few years ago. I haven't checked to see if they ever reversed that decision. If Texas has been dealing with budget issues in the last few years, then something similar might have happened.
As for the Government "footing the bill". That is not how Medicaid works. Medicaid works through part of the expenses being footed partially by the state, and the rest being paid for by the federal government. The problem is that at times, this can be a large expense on the state, especially in times of economic downturn. Footing todays bill so that you end up starving next week is not a solution.
It is kind of ironic that Republicans don't have that many new issues with Obamacare. Some of the complaints, such as church groups and contraception have already played out when Medicare, part D rolled out during the Bush administration. The main issue is the actions of the Democrats that controlled the House during the ACA's creation and the games they played during the ratification of the bill. That is the reason, more than the content of the bill itself that has caused this political divide to become an expanse over the last couple of years.
As for the Government "footing the bill". That is not how Medicaid works. Medicaid works through part of the expenses being footed partially by the state, and the rest being paid for by the federal government. The problem is that at times, this can be a large expense on the state, especially in times of economic downturn. Footing todays bill so that you end up starving next week is not a solution.
It is kind of ironic that Republicans don't have that many new issues with Obamacare. Some of the complaints, such as church groups and contraception have already played out when Medicare, part D rolled out during the Bush administration. The main issue is the actions of the Democrats that controlled the House during the ACA's creation and the games they played during the ratification of the bill. That is the reason, more than the content of the bill itself that has caused this political divide to become an expanse over the last couple of years.