KSB and jerry

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I can't find the post where KSB (I think it was) linked to a Washington Post column explaining how the grandfather provision in Obamacare works. There are 50 Obamacare threads on the first page right now (all numbers approximate) and I ain't sifting through them all. But It was a very good article and I have been thinking about it.

 

Here is the essential conundrum: the Affordable Care Act is supposed to mandate that every American have some basic level of insurance. Personally it seems to me like catastrophic-only would've been ok but apparently they didn't think that would effectuate the goals of the Act. I suppose it would be hard to work that in with the no pre-existing conditions issue too because catastrophic care really only contemplates payment for an isolated major event versus ongoing care for a chronic condition. But that's really all neither here nor there.

 

So they want to mandate some minimum level of insurance but people out there already have a plan that doesn't meet those requirements. OK, great, we'll grandfather them in and then eventually those non-confirming plans will die out naturally.

 

But here's the conundrum: maybe these non-confirming plans keep the same name and so forth but they simply change the terms of the plan to meet demand for people who want to remain outside the law. So that's where the regulators step in and say "no, it has to stay the exact same plan as it existed on such and such date, or else it's really then a different plan that must be in accordance with the law."

 

Makes sense in a way, but of course the end result is that none of these plans exist for long but you simply can't leave all terms of a plan unchanged forever.

 

So my thoughts on this is that what Obama said is not technically untrue--you could keep your plan (as long as your plan remains exactly the same in every way). But without that second part in the parentheses Obama's statements were highly misleading and really quite dishonest. It's clear that the idea was to head off a ton of people getting pissed because they didn't want to lose their current plan by telling them that they wouldn't, when in actuality it was inevitable that their insurance company would have to discontinue the plan even if it wasn't technically forced to by Obamacare.

 

Just wanted to get that off my chest for the adults in the room.

[drobeski 3,061]

I'll give you credit worms, at least you try and didnt bail like the rest of the hacks who defended this turd right up until the roll out.

Pen, med etal.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Worms is the most die-hard Obamatard on the bored.

 

Funny, really.

[KSB2424 3,148]

The way I understand it is that once a plan was changed in ANY way, that being cost or dropping or adding anything covered, absolutely anything, that it was no longer "grandfathered". And plans have small changes in cost/coverage all the time (almost yearly) so it really meant nothing was grandfathered.

 

It was a slight of hand, a shell game of trickery. Wether that was intentional, bold faced lie. Or simple confusion and innocent misuderstanding is up to the individual to decide.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

The way I understand it is that once a plan was changed in ANY way, that being cost or dropping or adding anything covered, absolutely anything, that it was no longer "grandfathered". And plans have small changes in cost/coverage all the time (almost yearly) so it really meant nothing was grandfathered.

 

It was a slight of hand, a shell game of trickery. Wether that was intentional, bold faced lie. Or simple confusion and innocent misuderstanding is up to the individual to decide.

I believe that it had to comply with certain requirements of the ACA, and absolutely none comply with ALL of the requirements. Therefore it is up the Insurance Companies who have "Grandfathered Plans" on whether it is viable/legal to 1. keep the plan in place or 2. remove those within the plan. The insured has no control.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

The way I understand it is that once a plan was changed in ANY way, that being cost or dropping or adding anything covered, absolutely anything, that it was no longer "grandfathered". And plans have small changes in cost/coverage all the time (almost yearly) so it really meant nothing was grandfathered.

 

It was a slight of hand, a shell game of trickery. Wether that was intentional, bold faced lie. Or simple confusion and innocent misuderstanding is up to the individual to decide.

I think there are two possibilities:

 

1) Basically a lie - sure you can keep your coverage, as long as it never changes which can't possibly be the case

 

2) Things changed - their intention really was to grandfather everyone in but then they realized that provision was too big of a loophole so they had to change it through a regulation they did not originally intend to have

 

I'll admit that even as a supporter of Obamacare that #1 is probably the more likely scenario

[jerryskids 6,829]

I can't find the post where KSB (I think it was) linked to a Washington Post column explaining how the grandfather provision in Obamacare works. There are 50 Obamacare threads on the first page right now (all numbers approximate) and I ain't sifting through them all. But It was a very good article and I have been thinking about it.

 

Here is the essential conundrum: the Affordable Care Act is supposed to mandate that every American have some basic level of insurance. Personally it seems to me like catastrophic-only would've been ok but apparently they didn't think that would effectuate the goals of the Act. I suppose it would be hard to work that in with the no pre-existing conditions issue too because catastrophic care really only contemplates payment for an isolated major event versus ongoing care for a chronic condition. But that's really all neither here nor there.

 

So they want to mandate some minimum level of insurance but people out there already have a plan that doesn't meet those requirements. OK, great, we'll grandfather them in and then eventually those non-confirming plans will die out naturally.

 

But here's the conundrum: maybe these non-confirming plans keep the same name and so forth but they simply change the terms of the plan to meet demand for people who want to remain outside the law. So that's where the regulators step in and say "no, it has to stay the exact same plan as it existed on such and such date, or else it's really then a different plan that must be in accordance with the law."

 

Makes sense in a way, but of course the end result is that none of these plans exist for long but you simply can't leave all terms of a plan unchanged forever.

 

So my thoughts on this is that what Obama said is not technically untrue--you could keep your plan (as long as your plan remains exactly the same in every way). But without that second part in the parentheses Obama's statements were highly misleading and really quite dishonest. It's clear that the idea was to head off a ton of people getting pissed because they didn't want to lose their current plan by telling them that they wouldn't, when in actuality it was inevitable that their insurance company would have to discontinue the plan even if it wasn't technically forced to by Obamacare.

 

Just wanted to get that off my chest for the adults in the room.

Here is how I look at it. The way the law is structured -- with requirements for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, maternity care, etc. -- it is pragmatically impossible for those companies to offer the same plans over time. Not to mention regular changes that occur in plans (as others have pointed out in this thread). So to presume that plans would remain unchanged is at best grossly incompetent, yet consistent with my model of government lacking the ability to see the consequences of their actions. At worst it was a flat out lie. I'm not really sure I give a fock at this point.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Here is how I look at it. The way the law is structured -- with requirements for insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, maternity care, etc. -- it is pragmatically impossible for those companies to offer the same plans over time. Not to mention regular changes that occur in plans (as others have pointed out in this thread). So to presume that plans would remain unchanged is at best grossly incompetent, yet consistent with my model of government lacking the ability to see the consequences of their actions. At worst it was a flat out lie. I'm not really sure I give a fock at this point.

That's what I said in my first post--as a practical matter it is impossible for an insurance plan to not change over time. So we're in agreement there

[jerryskids 6,829]

That's what I said in my first post--as a practical matter it is impossible for an insurance plan to not change over time. So we're in agreement there

OK

 

So, we are in agreement that Obamacare is some combination of grossly incompetent and a bold-faced lie? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here; in fact, I appreciate the premise of the thread. Just trying to see where we can have a productive discussion here.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

OK

 

So, we are in agreement that Obamacare is some combination of grossly incompetent and a bold-faced lie? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here; in fact, I appreciate the premise of the thread. Just trying to see where we can have a productive discussion here.

Oh no, we don't agree on that at all. We agree that one particular facet of Obamacare as it was billed--that if you like your insurance, you can keep it--was either essentially a lie or was a reckless mis-statement of what the program would actually be. Unlike you I do not take that as a sweeping indictment of Obamacare generally.

 

We are ultimately talking about a pretty damn small segment of the marketplace, and even though they essentially can't keep their plan as promised it will be replaced with a better plan at perhaps comparable prices depending on the amount of tax breaks the individual is eligible for.

[jerryskids 6,829]

Oh no, we don't agree on that at all. We agree that one particular facet of Obamacare as it was billed--that if you like your insurance, you can keep it--was either essentially a lie or was a reckless mis-statement of what the program would actually be. Unlike you I do not take that as a sweeping indictment of Obamacare generally.

 

We are ultimately talking about a pretty damn small segment of the marketplace, and even though they essentially can't keep their plan as promised it will be replaced with a better plan at perhaps comparable prices depending on the amount of tax breaks the individual is eligible for.

Umm... errrr... not sure where to start. I'll try here: if tax breaks are expected for the people who can't keep their current insurance, they should support it, right? Are those breaks in place already, or are you speculating on a a potential solution?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Umm... errrr... not sure where to start. I'll try here: if tax breaks are expected for the people who can't keep their current insurance, they should support it, right? Are those breaks in place already, or are you speculating on a a potential solution?

The tax breaks are in place already.

 

The way it works is if you're below some minimum-level of income then you basically get healthcare free through Medicaid. Used to be you had to be dirt poor to get Medicaid but now, in those states that have accepted Medicaid expansion, you only have to be sorta poor (sorry for the inexact terms but you get the idea).

 

If you aren't sorta poor but you aren't well off either, you will be entitled to some degree of tax breaks on a sliding scale based on income. I believe I read that even a family of four making $95k per year would be entitled to some degree of tax breaks. What you do is you buy insurance through the exchange and then when it comes time to submit your tax returns you get a credit as discussed above, or you can even get the credit on a rolling basis so you don't front that portion of the cost.

 

So somebody whose just kinda scraping by is probably going to get better insurance at a lower cost. The guy who might be kinda screwed is someone who makes quite a bit of money working for themselves but has chosen to cut corners with cheap cut-rate insurance.

 

That's the guy that you're angry for and, I don't know, maybe he does deserve to fock himself with crappy health insurance if he wants to make that choice, but keep in mind that when his crappy insurance fails to deliver and he can't afford to pay out of pocket for substantial medical costs, it's the other insureds who end up paying for the costs of his care. So I don't really feel that sorry for the folk who want to place that kind of burden on the rest of us.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Here's something a bit more detailed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

 

- Low-income individuals and families whose incomes are between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they purchase insurance via an exchange.[38] Those from 133% to 150% of the poverty level will be subsidized such that their premium costs will be 3% to 4% of income.[39] In 2013, the subsidy would apply for incomes up to $45,960 for an individual or $94,200 for a family of four; consumers can choose to receive their tax credits in advance, and the exchange will send the money directly to the insurer every month.[40] Small businesses will also be eligible for subsidies.[41]

 

- Medicaid eligibility is expanded to include individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, including adults without disabilities and without dependent children.[42] The law also provides for a 5% "income disregard", making the effective income eligibility limit for Medicaid 138% of the poverty level.[43] Furthermore, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollment process is simplified.[42] However, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that states may opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and several have done so.

[gocolts 300]

The tax breaks are in place already.

 

The way it works is if you're below some minimum-level of income then you basically get healthcare free through Medicaid. Used to be you had to be dirt poor to get Medicaid but now, in those states that have accepted Medicaid expansion, you only have to be sorta poor (sorry for the inexact terms but you get the idea).

 

If you aren't sorta poor but you aren't well off either, you will be entitled to some degree of tax breaks on a sliding scale based on income. I believe I read that even a family of four making $95k per year would be entitled to some degree of tax breaks. What you do is you buy insurance through the exchange and then when it comes time to submit your tax returns you get a credit as discussed above, or you can even get the credit on a rolling basis so you don't front that portion of the cost.

 

So somebody whose just kinda scraping by is probably going to get better insurance at a lower cost. The guy who might be kinda screwed is someone who makes quite a bit of money working for themselves but has chosen to cut corners with cheap cut-rate insurance.

 

That's the guy that you're angry for and, I don't know, maybe he does deserve to fock himself with crappy health insurance if he wants to make that choice, but keep in mind that when his crappy insurance fails to deliver and he can't afford to pay out of pocket for substantial medical costs, it's the other insureds who end up paying for the costs of his care. So I don't really feel that sorry for the folk who want to place that kind of burden on the rest of us.

Worms. I have Medicaid. I am extremely poor. I make under 25K a year with a household of 2, my son being a dependent.

 

I have to spend 546 bucks out of pocket EVERY month before Medicaid will pay a dime. They call it a spend down, which is just a fancy word for deductible. This is in Indiana. Not sure about the other states. Just wanted to give you and the others an idea of how much this is going to cost the poor folks.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Worms. I have Medicaid. I am extremely poor. I make under 25K a year with a household of 2, my son being a dependent.

 

I have to spend 546 bucks out of pocket EVERY month before Medicaid will pay a dime. They call it a spend down, which is just a fancy word for deductible. This is in Indiana. Not sure about the other states. Just wanted to give you and the others an idea of how much this is going to cost the poor folks.

This may benefit you. The "spend-down" is not really a "deductible." What it means is that you are sufficiently above some established baseline of "poverty" that you have to spend enough money on your own to get down to that level of poverty. The "spend down" level may change with Onamacare (assuming Indiana accepts Medicaid expansion) although admittedly I don't know if that's truly the case.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I'll give you credit worms, at least you try and didnt bail like the rest of the hacks who defended this turd right up until the roll out.

Pen, med etal.

I don't think either of us defended the ACA. To set the record straight:

 

The basic intent is good, but the execution poor. Universal coverage is an important goal, but so is cost containment and quality in our expensive, yet mediocre healthcare .

 

I don't think the private world can solve our system's dilemma, because healthcare doesn't follow the basic principles which govern business operation. For example, it is unethical to withhold (costly) treatment for severe illness solely based on ability to pay.

 

Eventually we'll realize what the rest of the world with better, more affordable healthcare already knows: a centralized single-payer works best.

 

I'll also add as a provider, the execution of the ACA's provisions is pretty painful so far.

[Reality 3,121]

Eventually we'll realize what the rest of the world with better, more affordable healthcare already knows: a centralized single-payer works best.

 

This is just pure nonsense.

[DankNuggs 305]

I don't think either of us defended the ACA. To set the record straight:

 

The basic intent is good, but the execution poor. Universal coverage is an important goal, but so is cost containment and quality in our expensive, yet mediocre healthcare .

 

I don't think the private world can solve our system's dilemma, because healthcare doesn't follow the basic principles which govern business operation. For example, it is unethical to withhold (costly) treatment for severe illness solely based on ability to pay.

 

Eventually we'll realize what the rest of the world with better, more affordable healthcare already knows: a centralized single-payer works best.

 

I'll also add as a provider, the execution of the ACA's provisions is pretty painful so far.

Ya and communism in theory works....

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

Eventually we'll realize what the rest of the world with better, more affordable healthcare already knows: a centralized single-payer works best.

 

 

Sigworthy.

[penultimatestraw 473]

This is just pure nonsense.

Why do you think so?

 

I can give you data which shows we pay more and get less for our healthcare than other high income countries. And guess what, they almost all have centralized, government-sponsored universal healthcare.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Sigworthy.

Who has the best healthcare in the world?

[Reality 3,121]

Why do you think so?

 

I can give you data which shows we pay more and get less for our healthcare than other high income countries. And guess what, they almost all have centralized, government-sponsored universal healthcare.

Your statement said the rest of the world. It was false on every level.

 

It's actually silly I even have to point this out.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Your statement said the rest of the world. It was false on every level.

 

It's actually silly I even have to point this out.

I said this:

 

Eventually we'll realize what the rest of the world with better, more affordable healthcare already knows: a centralized single-payer works best.

Meaning the portion of the world with better healthcare than the US, not the whole world. Maybe I should have said the portion of the world rather than the rest of it.

 

I can see how you may have been confused, but now that I've clarified my statement, do you care to answer my question - who has the best healthcare in the world?

[Reality 3,121]

I said this:

Meaning the portion of the world with better healthcare than the US, not the whole world. Maybe I should have said the portion of the world rather than the rest of it.

 

I can see how you may have been confused, but now that I've clarified my statement, do you care to answer my question - who has the best healthcare in the world?

No, I don't believe every high income country who also has a Government run healthcare program has better healthcare than the US.

 

Once again, it sounds silly to even type out.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Who has the best healthcare in the world?

 

 

Depends on how you describe 'best".

 

Canada has universal healthcare but......

 

Danny Williams, Canadian Official, Seeks Heart Surgery In US

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/danny-williams-canadian-o_n_446481.html

 

 

The Saudi Royal family can surely pay for the "best healthcare" in the world, but......

 

 

 

Saudi crown prince has surgery in US

 

 

 

 

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nownews/saudi_crown_prince_has_surgery_in_us

 

 

 

These are just two of many examples of people leaving countries with gubmint run healthcare for procedures here. If our system is so shiotty, why are they coming here?

 

Let the spin begin.....

[penultimatestraw 473]

No, I don't believe every high income country who also has a Government run healthcare program has better healthcare than the US.

 

Once again, it sounds silly to even type out.

Holy crap, you have reading comprehension issues. Who has the best healthcare in the world?

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

 

Depends on how you describe 'best".

 

Canada has universal healthcare but......

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/danny-williams-canadian-o_n_446481.html

 

 

The Saudi Royal family can surely pay for the "best healthcare" in the world, but......

 

 

 

 

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nownews/saudi_crown_prince_has_surgery_in_us

 

 

 

These are just two of many examples of people leaving countries with gubmint run healthcare for procedures here. If our system is so shiotty, why are they coming here?

 

Let the spin begin.....

To suggest our system is best because wealthy foreigners use it for certain surgical procedures is flawed. Perhaps we have the best CT surgeons, or best care for the extremely wealthy? (I don't necessarily believe these statements, but they are plausible). Look up medical tourism if you want to see examples of Americans seeking foreign healthcare - CT surgery in India is an interesting example.

 

Also, wealthy Middle Easterners often drive Mercedes Benz. Are they the best cars?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I provided links to people coming here for treatment from countries that have the kind of system you claim is superior to ours.

 

You have provided no links to support your assertion. I guess you could link to a story about Kobe going overseas for treatment on his injur to show we need more Gubmint involvement in our healthcare............oh wait, Kobe did that because our gubmint has banned that procedure in the U.S.

 

 

Not a good example.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

We've had this argument before. Medical tourism happens everywhere--hell, you hear about Americans going to Mexico for much cheaper elective surgeries but would you say Mexico has the best healthcare in the world? Hell no!

 

This is RP rehashing a stupid point that's already been debunked.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If people go to Mexico for surgery because it's cheaper the reason is not because their system is better...it is because it's cheap.

 

He never said anything about cost. He talked about quality.

 

What a dumbass.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

If people go to Mexico for surgery because it's cheaper the reason is not because their system is better...it is because it's cheap.

 

He never said anything about cost. He talked about quality.

 

What a dumbass.

"Better" includes pricing, dumbsh!t. If you can buy a great car for $20k or an ever-so-slightly-greater car for $60k, which one is "better" in your mind?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

"Better" includes pricing, dumbsh!t. If you can buy a great car for $20k or an ever-so-slightly-greater car for $60k, which one is "better" in your mind?

Dumbass analogy........so let's run with it. If you can get a healthcare policy that fits your needs and budget, is it 'better" to have to pay more for, say, maternity coverage?

 

That's one way Obama is spinning his lies about Obamacare.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Dumbass analogy........so let's run with it. If you can get a healthcare policy that fits your needs and budget, is it 'better" to have to pay more for, say, maternity coverage?

 

That's one way Obama is spinning his lies about Obamacare.

Ahh the ol' change-the-subject ploy. An RP favorite when he's losing an argument.

 

No thanks, not today.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ahh the ol' change-the-subject ploy. An RP favorite when he's losing an argument.

No thanks, not today.

You changed the subject from healthcare to cars.

 

What a dumbass.

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Congrats on finding a way to derail this thread. I started it as a way to talk to the big boys but I should've known you'd find a way to weasel on in here with your typical bullsh!t trolling.

 

Well played you useless piece of sh!t

[TimmySmith 2,782]

IGW, you argue like woman. Always dodging. Penultimatestraw argued our HC was not the best in the world. It is. By a mile. Best run, no. Cheapest, no. All we have are the best doctors and hospitals.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Congrats on finding a way to derail this thread. I started it as a way to talk to the big boys but I should've known you'd find a way to weasel on in here with your typical bullsh!t trolling.

Well played you useless piece of sh!t

I was having an adult back and forth with Peanut until you derailed your own fukking thread you ginormous dumbshit.

[Reality 3,121]

Holy crap, you have reading comprehension issues. Who has the best healthcare in the world?

 

At this point all the reading comprehension in the world couldn't figure out your babbling. You didn't ask who had the best health coverage in the world in your original post.

 

Quantifying that would be pretty tough anyway, so your "question" can't be answered with 100% certainty anyway. Quality being the most important to me, I'll take ours over any other.

 

Keep acting like a douche though.

 

 

[Reality 3,121]

IGW, you argue like woman. Always dodging. Penultimatestraw argued our HC was not the best in the world. It is. By a mile. Best run, no. Cheapest, no. All we have are the best doctors and hospitals.

IGW is a focking idiot, I'm floored anytime people actually still try to have grown up conversations with him.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Worms thinks cuz people can go to Juarez and get cheap lipo and face lifts our system must sukk.

 

That's all he has so far.