Before Obamacare and After Obamacare

Status
Not open for further replies.
After Obamacare

His plan to create a National Health Insurance Exchange failed but instead... created state-based health care plan.

source
Health care law creates state-based exchanges

President Obama signed health care legislation into law on March 23, 2010. The law calls for the creation of state-based health insurance exchanges, which are virtual marketplaces where people can go to buy health insurance.

But during the campaign, Obama, promised to create one national exchange, a significant difference.

During the run-up to the final passage, experts weighed in on important differences between a single national exchange and 50 different state-based exchanges.Many Democrats and groups advocating health care reform favoreda single national exchange, so that the federal government could enforce uniform standards, even in states with minimal regulation of insurers.

But state officials argued that they were in the best position to implement the exchanges, because most current health insurance regulation happens on the state level.

The issue of national-versus-state-exchanges had several interesting pro's and con's, said Elizabeth Carpenter, writing in a January 2010 report on for the New American Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy institute.

"If we give too much power to the states, can late-adopters and outright opponents stand in the way of progress?" Carpenter wrote. "And if we centralize the exchange, do we risk thwarting state ingenuity and local knowledge?"

The question became moot, however, when Democrats in the Senate lost their 60-seat majority with the election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts in January. That led the House of Representatives to approve the Senate plan with its state-based exchanges.

Because the law includes the state-based exchanges, not one national exchange, we rate this promise a Compromise.
Click to expand...

Effective Immediately (link)
Eliminating caps: If you buy a policy, a health care company will not be able to place a lifetime -- or annual -- cap on how much they will cover. This is will be especially important for those diagnosed with serious illnesses, such as cancer, who face steep medical bills.

Pre-existing conditions: The Senate bill includes $5 billion in immediate support to provide temporary coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. The money would help you until the new health care exchanges in the Senate bill are put into effect in 2014.

Children and pre-existing conditions: Another thing that's going to be very important, CNN Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger said, is that there will be no exclusion of children with pre-existing conditions.

Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26.

"Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy," Borger said. "That's very important to a lot of families."

Small business tax credits: Those tax credits are aimed at helping small businesses buy health insurance for their employees. Tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that offer coverage, according to the Senate's plan.

Preventive care: All new insurance plans, Obama said, will be required to offer free preventive care in order to "catch preventable illnesses and diseases on the front end."

Appeals process: A new independent appeals process will be set up for those who feel that they were unfairly denied a claim by their insurance company.

Help for seniors: If you fall into the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit coverage gap, dubbed the "donut hole," you will receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions.
Click to expand...

The EVIL
Mandatory Insurance effective 2016

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Click to expand...
 
This is what you put in your previous post -
Obama: Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it. I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.
Click to expand...

This is what he said BEFORE the quote you posted
OBAMA: Well, I actually think that a couple of the ones that Hillary mentioned are genuine policy differences that are worthy of debate.

Let's take health care. About 95 percent of our plans are similar. We both set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance.

We both want to emphasize prevention, because we've got to do something about ever escalating costs and we don't want children, who I meet all the time, going to emergency rooms for treatable illnesses like asthma.

It is true we've got a policy difference, because my view is that the reason people don't have health care, and I meet them all the time, in South Carolina, a mother whose child has cerebral palsy and could not get insurance for and started crying during a town hall meeting, and Hillary, I'm sure, has had the same experiences.

What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.

Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.
Click to expand...

kokonut said:
Nothing is taken out of context if Obama said 2 years ago that people shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance and now he requires it. Get where I'm getting at?

It's a called a "lie."
Click to expand...
That's not exactly what he meant. What he was concerned is that Clinton wanted people to buy health coverage even if they cannot afford it or face fines. But Obama was being clever about it. He was playing with her words to score some points.

Although - right now... effective 2016 - we are required to have health insurance coverage or face fines up to $695 or 2.5% of your income (whichever is greater). However - "Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, those for whom the lowest-cost option exceeds 8 percent of an individual's income and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009, the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples)." (source)

That is my main issue. Obviously this reform was no easy task. Compromise has to be made. You've been in real world long enough to know that it's a common strategy in order to get the main job done. Since Hillary Clinton's a seasoned politician with strong support base... it's no surprise that Obama's gotta compromise in order to gain her support base. You don't always get exactly what you want but Obama got what he wanted on most part. Quite a portion of Obama's Health Care Reform was what he promised during his 2008 Presidential Campaign.

so.... you said "Obama lied big time.".... big time? what else did he lie beside mandatory insurance?
 
interesting

Question: I am on a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO plan where I pay $252 now. It has been increasing every year, and I may have been to the doctor probably once or twice a year for physical. I do not smoke and am in perfect health, but every year for some reason, my they keep raising my insurance costs. With the new reform, are they going to have some checks and balance on these companies, who before did not have to answer to anyone? Or can I change my insurance to a government-run cheaper insurance?

Answer: Beginning in 2011, companies that spend more than a specified portion of premiums on administrative costs and profits must give a rebate to enrollees. In other words, large insurance companies will need to give rebates if they spend less than 85 percent of money from enrollees on medical costs. In the individual market, that figure is 80 percent. Also, the health care exchanges could reject premium increases that insurers propose if they think they are too high.

In 2014, on the individual market, you can buy your own insurance through the exchanges if you do not have health insurance through your employer, or through Medicare or Medicaid. These exchanges are supposed to provide plans that are as good as employer-based plans, which generally have good benefits. If you do have employer-based coverage, however, and don't spend more than 9.5 percent of your income on premiums and the plan covers at least 60 percent of medical costs, you are not eligible for premium subsidies. But if your employer-based coverage does not meet this standard, you will be able to get insurance through the exchange, and your employer is required to pay a penalty.
Click to expand...

I hope the Senate will be able to remove that "mandatory insurance" part out.
 
Last edited:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BosEz0_neqo[/ame]
 
60%.......Is that the minimum standard they are going to set? That is horrible coverage.
 
"Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26.

'Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy,' Borger said."

Children?

How will "children" ever become productive adults if they are still dependent on their parents into their 20's?
 
Oooh, it is exactly what he did. He lied.

OBAMA: When Senator Clinton says a mandate, it's not a mandate on government to provide health insurance. It's a mandate on individuals to purchase it. Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20% of the uninsured because they've concluded that that 20% can't afford it. In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can't afford it so now they're worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they're paying a fine. (applause) In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what's in this health care bill. You provided a very good example of that, Jiro. He ripped Mrs. Clinton for exactly what is in his own health care bill! Not a compromise, but a conniving, lying person who had an agenda from the get go. He criticized Hillary Clinton for even suggesting that the govt have a mandate where everybody buy insurance. He points to Massachusetts where it doesn't work because 20% of the people can't afford it and then he says the truth, "In order to get people to do it you have to have a harsh, stiff penalty." And that's about controlling the people, their behaviors, and stops at nothing even if the truth is staring in their faces.
 
Reba said:
"Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26.

'Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy,' Borger said."

Children?

How will "children" ever become productive adults if they are still dependent on their parents into their 20's?
Click to expand...

I know several ones are in their early 20s depend on their parents because they are poor college students who have part-time jobs without full benefits. For instance, my niece is 20 years old, and recently got married. She is a full-time student at a university for her majors, pre-med, and literature. Thanks goodness, she has a full paid scholarship, but her husband is taking out his student loans, $16,000 and up. He has a part-time job at a bank. They both do not have medical insurances, but they can go to their clinic at a university if one of them is sick. They still have to borrow money from their parents if the money is tight. They have one car now.
 
Reba said:
"Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26.

'Children who are over 21 and may not have a job that pays their health insurance can still be on your policy,' Borger said."

Children?

How will "children" ever become productive adults if they are still dependent on their parents into their 20's?
Click to expand...

I guess when they have children? then they are responsible for their own children. I'm not sure if grandparents can cover grandchildren unless they are their legal guardian.
 
Lighthouse77 said:
I guess when they have children? then they are responsible for their own children. I'm not sure if grandparents can cover grandchildren unless they are their legal guardian.
Click to expand...
When do "children" grow up and become adults?
 
kokonut said:
Maybe it's a perfect example on the state of this current administration? Confused....
Click to expand...

maybe you are confused? which part of items in the reform do you not like?
 
Barbaro said:
I know several ones are in their early 20s depend on their parents because they are poor college students who have part-time jobs without full benefits. For instance, my niece is 20 years old, and recently got married. She is a full-time student at a university for her majors, pre-med, and literature. Thanks goodness, she has a full paid scholarship, but her husband is taking out his student loans, $16,000 and up. He has a part-time job at a bank. They both do not have medical insurances, but they can go to their clinic at a university if one of them is sick. They still have to borrow money from their parents if the money is tight. They have one car now.
Click to expand...
I guess this whole concept of a married couple being treated like "children" is foreign to me. After I graduated from high school, it never occurred to me to even ask my parents for college money, insurance, or living expenses. By then, I was age 18, a legal adult.

I can understand a single college student living at home getting a room and board provided, as long as they are working and paying for their own college expenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top