MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Affordable Care Act (ACA) - Obamacare

Clearly, No one in this thread makes less than 50K per year, or whatever the cutoff is. The breakeven cutoff to get the same cost health plan as last year (as an individual/non corporate) is around 92K. I don't think anyone here even makes that little, or they just don't care to ABIDE the LAW...:eek:

*** The only ones complaining appears to be the docs and the current side benefactor$.. Its AMUZING that NEVER does a single voice get heard by THE PEOPLE which the plan attempts to help - which is the poor.. And they are so fuking ignorant, they would rather stand on the sideline "Bitching about their rights", rather than go to the healthcare.gov site and find out their health insurance will cost about NOTHING...

As far as I can see - The FRONTSIDE honorable attempt at the plan is to get the Lower Middle Class to ani UP for some premium the may not have otherwise paid, and the balance all the poor freeloaders in the ERs.. Do people even realize that "The Middle Class" includes tax brackets to 250k these days?? The Middle Class is not "disappearing", the tax brackets are LEAVING IT BEHIND.. So this is a THORN IN THE SIDE or a runaway freight train to say the least, and a wake up call - as an underlying political agenda. I find it AMAZING that the thing got this far. This actually says something good about moral constitution clearly remaining in the US.. And change is hard. ONLY Obama could have pulled this off. And be sure - he is an INSTRUMENT of ECONOMICS, as is EVERYTHING....

So the irony is that You CAN NOT FORCE Americans to purchase ANYTHING as it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is PROOF of the farce and as a SIMPLY POLITICAL SPIKE IN THE ROAD to BIG INTERE$T$... THE PROOF will be that folks can not be put in jails for not buying. So it will go to court ultimately and be overturned once he's out of office, but the HIT will be incurred and CHANGE - WILL BE - Effected...! But not until the fight is fought. And the TEETH are starting the KNARL.... So let the dogs reveal themselves and we are going to see who's got RABIES, and who's got BITE.. Will "the people" every even raise their sleepy heads up off the DOG PILE...?

Clearly the ultimate risk of playing this out too long is ever widening the gap between the rich and the poor. And including the PSYCHOLOGICAL GAP. Their is some accountance that the Dog WILL LIE.. This would be a monkey wrench if he gets a whiff...

But EVERYONE making over 92k is going to be paying more now... So then its designed to make the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS eat the brunt of the subsidy for the poor's premiums... The RICH (You never met) don't care anyway, that is other from their political agenda which is the BUSINESS they PURVEY.. There are those few "play boys" out there. A few...

Docs offices are already gearing up in the "adjustment" to the new "proceedures" as I was notified last month that I'm gonna have to start coming in every 3 months whereas I used to be able to get away with once per year.. They got to make up the $$income Right?? But what will this mean for me. A tired doc, WHO IS ALREADY TIRED..! Nurses that have to do something more than think about who they are gonna BANG next in the broom closet..? Hiring of LPNs that are even more incompetent than the currently are. Or Good docs now employing Nurse practitioners to do their jobs for them thus affording them to double their volume with minimal increased expense. But thats the same care right? That seasoned doc with a good eye and strong personal background knowledge about YOU is now replacement with someone that can call the same shots...?!!? As a patient - You better be smart enough to navigate these waters...!
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJyUMa4bJ6c]Richard Simmons' Bizarre Dance-Off for Obamacare - YouTube[/ame]

Anybody?? Can you imagine that when these 3 were born. Did their parents ever fkn dream this?
 
my brother in law is a licensed adviser and specializing in this area if anyone has any questions feel free to ask and I will get you the answers
 
Why I’m Republican and Love Obamacare - Yahoo Finance

I’ve been reporting on health reform since before the law passed, and in the early days, there was a lot of concern about government death panels deciding who would get care and who would be left to die.

Well, we already have our own version of death panels: It’s called health insurance. If you have coverage, you get treatment. If not, well, tough for you.

True story: When my husband was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, the parting words of the doctor who did the endoscopy were, no joke, “I hope you have health insurance. Because you’re going to need it.”

Boy, was he right. When I called the cancer center for general information, they asked for our insurance information. When I made the consultation appointment, they asked for our insurance information. When we showed up, they checked our insurance information. In the middle of the consultation, we met with a finance guy who, that’s right, checked our insurance information.

And then get this. We show up for the first chemo visit, my husband is hooked to the IV and the nurse says she needs to wait a minute before getting started. When my husband asked why, she said it was because they needed to reconfirm our insurance coverage. My husband asked what happens if the insurance company says they won’t pay, and the nurse told him they would probably pull us back to meet with a financial adviser and they might need to change the treatment plan.

In other words, if you don’t have health insurance, you get sub-par treatment.
 
Crap like these horror stories serve NO purpose what so ever!
Did "you" tell us what stage this esophageal cancer was diagnosed at? NOPE!

Now why would I ask? Because the MORTALITY of esophageal CA is 100% (the OVERWHELMING majority in one year) if NOT diagnosed at stage ONE!

Now what percent are diagnosed at stage one LESS THAN 5%! Why ....... has NOTHING TO DO with whether you have health insurance. The reason, like many other cancers, BECAUSE the condition remains relatively silent until symptoms from either local or regional metastasis has occurred at the time of diagnosis.

Finally excluding esophagectomy for stage I disease NO THERAPY including radiation, chemo or biologic therapy effects the unfortunate demise of those effected (death in one year).

The truth of the matter is, while having insurance improves or expedites a patients ACCESS to health care it's absence by no means eliminates it. (Fact is in most cases whether you have or don't have insurance matters not, the treatment is IDENTICAL)

These "insurance" horror stories rarely tell the whole truth but are more often the reflection of those who "what to be listened to" because they have lost a loved
one (or some fool made an indignant comment as in this case)

And this case again proves the point I've tried to make previously, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS! If you want the truth GET THE DETAILS!

JIM
 
I spoke with my doctor about the aca. He say's he will not accept it voluntarily.
He claims the government will eventually force him to accept.
His take is (If they can force the public to accept the aca, its just a matter of time until they force doctors to accept it also.)
He says it will die of its own weight after it cost him a fortune.
 
Roadblocks on Health Reform
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/roadblocks-on-health-reform.html?_r=0

Onerous restrictions imposed by Missouri on federally approved counselors who help people understand and enroll in health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act have rightly been blocked by a federal district judge in Kansas City. Although the ruling by Judge Ortrie Smith applies only to Missouri, its reasoning applies to similar laws or regulations adopted by more than a dozen Republican-led states that are doing their best to sabotage health care reform.

Missouri has been especially recalcitrant in trying to block reform. It declined to create its own insurance exchange, as have many other states, leaving that task to the federal government. It also forbade state and local officials from cooperating with the federal exchange.

Its most outrageous tactic requires counselors, known as navigators, who are already required to meet federal standards, to obtain a separate state license that requires many extra hours of training. They are also required to get an insurance agent’s license before offering advice about the strengths and weaknesses of various health plans. Judge Smith called these additional burdens impermissible obstacles to carrying out the federal law. State officials claim the law ensures that counselors are competent and not scam artists. But the judge ruled that the state law, which he said is pre-empted by the federal law, would harm the public interest by preventing navigators from carrying out their duties. Consumer advocates ought to challenge such laws in other states as well.
 
The Proposed Republican Replacement For ObamaCare Is A Big Tax Hike - Forbes

Here’s what the Senators propose: right now, health insurance is not taxed as income. This is arguably the original sin of the U.S. healthcare system, which has insulated consumers from health costs and allowed prices to skyrocket. During World War II, wages were frozen but pensions and benefits were exempted; in 1943 the Internal Revenue Service ruled that these benefits weren’t taxable, either.

Many health economists believe this is a bad thing, because it shields people from paying their own premiums, and Coburn, Burr, and Hatch deserve credit for tackling this head on. But that doesn’t make this any more politically workable – or appealing to those of us who get health insurance through our employers.

They write:

Therefore, our proposal caps the tax exclusion for employee’s health coverage at 65 percent of an average plan’s costs. The value of employer-sponsored health insurance would be capped and indexed to grow at an annual rate of CPI +1.

Taxing 35% of the average plan – and more than that for plans that are above-average, as half are, could amount to a substantial tax. Tying the growth of the tax-exempt portion of the plan to the Consumer Price Index would also limit the cost of plans, pushing cost-saving measures.

How big a tax might this be for an average American family? Ezekiel has some numbers. The average employer health plan for a family of four costs $16,351, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the employer covers 72% of that, or $11,772. Thirty-five percent of $11,772 is $4,120.35. The employee’s share of the Social Security and Medicare payroll tax is 7.65%, or $315.21. Assuming this family of four is in the 25% marginal income tax bracket, that would add another $1,030.09, for a total tax increase of $1,345. (For more from Emanuel, see this Times piece.)

Up to 300% of the poverty line, there would be subsidies to help people buy insurance. It’s not immediately clear how these compare to the subsidies offered by Obamacare; they don’t look greater.

Removing a bunch of corporate taxes so that the middle class can pay more seems like a political non-starter, even given the public backlash against Obamacare. This plan would likely mean that more people would lose insurance, or be forced to go to smaller networks of doctors. Those are the same criticisms levied against the Affordable Care Act.

Another notable thing about the proposal is how much of the ACA it keeps: it gets rid of state healthcare exchanges, but it keeps the basic structure of trying to keep people in the insurance system (in this case by making pre-existing conditions something that insurers can’t use against you until you fail to sign up for coverage – and then you get slammed) and of paying subsidies to help poor people get insurance. Allowing less comprehensive benefits and allowing insurers to charge five times as much for their sickest and oldest customers as for their youngest and healthiest, compared to three times under Obamacare, could lower the cost of insurance for young people and get more of them in the system.
 
Drasga RE, Einhorn LH. Why Oncologists Should Support Single-Payer National Health Insurance. Journal of Oncology Practice 2014;10(1):7-11. http://org.salsalabs.com/o/307/images/Drasga%20Einhorn%20authors%20proof-edited%20(1).pdf

Oncologists face growing difficulties in caring for patients because of the rising cost of treatment coupled with the high prevalence of uninsurance and underinsurance. A diagnosis of cancer is often the single most catastrophic health care event in an individual’s life. The stress of the situation increases exponentially when patients realize the burden of cost on themselves and their families.

Oncologists face the dilemma of advising a treatment schema that the patient can afford. Therapies may need to be compromised as a result of the patient’s inability to pay. Patients often present with more advanced disease because they have never had cancer screenings because of a lack of insurance or concerns about cost. Meanwhile, the prices of cancer-related drugs are rising sharply, prompting some oncologists to sound the alarm.1

Different insurance plans have their own procedures for use review and benefit determinations, making it difficult for providers to interpret whether cancer treatment will be covered. The average patient finds it frustrating to navigate the bureaucracy with his or her life and financial security on the line. This article will outline the scope of these issues and offer an evidence-based case for single-payer national health insurance.


Derasga and Einhorn state their case for a single-payer system by delineating problems that such a system could address:
• Reduced administrative costs, which currently account for almost a third of healthcare expenditures
• Eliminating many bankruptcies attributable to healthcare costs, which accounted for more than 60% of family bankruptcies identified in a 2009 report
• Improved health, as indicated by evidence that being uninsured increases the mortality hazard by 40%
• Building on an existing structure, noting that about 60% of all healthcare in the U.S. is publicly funded
• Implementation of proven cost-containment strategies, which are absent from the ACA
• Improving quality of care and outcomes by increasing access to care
• Reverse the trend toward for-profit, investor-owned healthcare plans
• Preserve physician's income potential, as judged by experience with the Canadian healthcare system
 
Last edited:
Another bogus Obamacare story: The GOP's 'Bette' - latimes.com

The centerpiece of the Republican party's attack on the Affordable Care Act following President Obama's State of the Union address this week was the story of "Bette."

Bette was an otherwise unidentified Washington state resident featured in the official GOP response to the Obama speech delivered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). According to Rodgers, Bette had written her a letter stating that she had "hoped the president’s healthcare law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month." The lesson, according to Rodgers: "This law is not working."

Bette has now been tracked down by her hometown Spokane Spokesman-Review. She's Bette Grenier, who owns a small business with her husband. Unsurprisingly, her story is much different from the sketchy description provided by Rodgers. That description perplexed experts, including Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who couldn't understand how a state resident "would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements," the newspaper reported.

Grenier told the newspaper that she wrote Rodgers after her insurance company informed her that her $552-a-month catastrophic health plan would not be offered in 2014. It offered her an alternative plan complying with the ACA at $1,052 a month.

But that sounds like her insurer trying to steer her to an overpriced option. A compliant plan meeting the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandates actually is available from Washington's insurance exchange for much less -- and with a deductible far lower than the $10,000 she was paying under the old plan and broader coverage, though lacking a provision for four free doctor visits a year provided by her old plan.

Grenier said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.”

Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage," the newspaper reported.

Does this make sense? Grenier deliberately decided to forgo the options available to her and her family from the Affordable Care Act, despite the knowledge that they might be more suitable for her than her old insurance or the plan being hawked by her insurer -- she says a friend of hers found a plan for a mere $129 a month.

But her plight has nothing to do with Obamacare. It's a product of her own apparently flawed decision to refuse even to look into the benefits the healthcare law might provide. And it's another sign of how threadbare the GOP criticism of the Affordable Care Act has become. If this is the best they can conjure up for what might be one of the best-watched TV appearances a back-bench Republican congresswoman gets to deliver, shouldn't they give up already?


‘Bette in Spokane,’ cited in McMorris Rodgers’ speech, declined health insurance options - Spokesman.com - Jan. 30, 2014
 
Life after Jan. 1: Kentucky clinic offers early glimpse at realities of health-care law
Life after Jan. 1: Kentucky clinic offers early glimpse at realities of health-care law - The Washington Post

Life since Jan. 1: The number of uninsured has dropped by 520 people, which represents about 21 percent of the those without coverage. Of that 520, 472 qualified under the health-care law’s expanded income parameters for Medicaid, which is aimed at the working poor. Here and there, for-profit clinics that never accepted the uninsured have hung “Welcome new patients!” signs on doors. A new blue billboard hovering above the Hardee’s advertises surgery to treat acid reflux.

And at the Breathitt Family Health Center, the newly insured started calling on Jan. 2 to get prescriptions sent to Wal-Mart and to line up appointments. And soon after that, they started trickling in.

* * *

The problem was never really that people did not see a doctor at all. The mission of the clinic, which has been open since 2004 and survives largely on federal grants, has always been to provide primary care to the uninsured on a sliding fee scale, usually about $20 per visit.

The problem, said Derrick Hamilton, a doctor of internal medicine and the clinic’s chief medical officer, is that people have come erratically to save even on a $20 fee and, more significantly, have been unable to follow up with costly specialists.

“I could shingle the roof with all the ‘against medical advice’ forms I’ve had to sign because people can’t afford to pay,” he said, referring to the paper he would hand patients who declined to follow a recommendation to get an MRI exam or see a specialist about mysterious stomach pains.

But he knew things were changing when one of his first patients after the law took effect showed up with an index card listing all the ailments she wanted to investigate: chest pains, blurry vision, popping hips, gynecological matters and lingering psychological problems from the death of a son five years earlier.
Click to expand...
 
Highest Uninsured States Less Likely to Embrace Health Law
Medicaid expansion, state exchanges uncommon among highest uninsured states
Highest Uninsured States Less Likely to Embrace Health Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana are the states with the highest percentage of uninsured adult residents, but Arkansas is the only one of the five that has chosen to expand Medicaid and to set up its own state exchange in the health insurance marketplace. Of the 12 states with the highest uninsured rates, eight have thus far decided not to expand Medicaid or establish state-based exchanges.
Click to expand...
 
Millions Trapped in Health-Law Coverage Gap
Earning Too Little for Health-Law Subsidies but Ineligible for Benefits Under Existing Medicaid Programs
Millions Trapped in Health-Law Coverage Gap - WSJ.com

The 2010 health law was meant to cover people in Mr. Maiden's income bracket by expanding Medicaid to workers earning up to the federal poverty line—about $11,670 for a single person; more for families. People earning as much as four times the poverty line—$46,680 for a single person—can receive federal subsidies.

But the Supreme Court in 2012 struck down the law's requirement that states expand their Medicaid coverage. Republican elected officials in 24 states, including Alabama, declined the expansion, triggering a coverage gap. Officials said an expansion would add burdensome costs and, in some cases, leave more people dependent on government.
 
How Obamacare Became the New Welfare
How Obamacare Became the New Welfare -- Daily Intelligencer

Having at various times represented different kinds of evils in the conservative mind — imminent social disintegration (the logic being: national health insurance equals Europe, Europe equals Greece), medical rationing enforced by bureaucrats, the collapse of the administrative state – Obamacare has now taken on a new connotation: welfare. The Congressional Budget Office’s budget update last week surprisingly adapted an analysis, advocated by conservative economist Casey Mulligan, that Obamacare would induce the equivalent of two million full-time jobs in reduced labor. Now, in addition to its previously recited horrors, Obamacare was taking money from hard-working Americans to finance indolence.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
‘ world’s biggest illegal weight loss jabs raid’ in the UK
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
malfeasance
malfeasance
dinfar1337
What is Palantir, and how do we avoid getting spied on
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
3K
dinfaralt
D
Millard
First person charged under the Rodchenkov Act
Replies
11
Views
3K
uofmchamps
uofmchamps
Millard
Feds trace $4.5 billion cryptocurrency from 2016 hack of Bitfinex
Replies
17
Views
1K
TrenBolognaSandwich
TrenBolognaSandwich
bigrobbie
objective research paper on those of us who handle our own TRT
Replies
11
Views
5K
Rand
R

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top