Slashdot Mirror

Oddly, Obama seems to have ensured one government site stayed up...

https://www.healthcare.gov/

Are you suggesting that healthcare.gov is more secure than the federal sites that were shut down?

IMHO, the author's conclusion is a bit overly dramatic. I think a more realistic conclusion is a gradual fade out of cloud computing and cloud storage. Business and people will be more inclined to keep their private data on local, closed systems now because they no longer trust the government not to stick their nose in where it doesn't belong. How long will it be before the same effect happens to socialized medicine? Would you trust the government not to use your medical status against you?

Bad example on the "socialized medicine" angle.

It's the private insurers that one needs to worry about: they'll use your health status to refuse you because they have a profit motive. At least with socialized medicine that doesn't happen.

http://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-pre-existing-health-condition/

Starting in 2014, health insurance plans can't refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a pre-existing health condition. Being sick doesn't keep you from getting coverage

Further interesting examples seen via something like this:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hmo+pre-existing+condition+refuse+coverage

There's a very good chance it will fall under the grandfathering rules which means that for the most part it doesn't have to meet those standards.

Here's the FAQ on that: https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan

The main catch in those rules is that if the plan's had any significant changes since March 23, 2010 it may not qualify. Note that you don't have to have been enrolled since then, just the details of the plan can't have changed much. Your insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is grandfather-able.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Fixing the individual market is arguably the #1 effect of the ACA. Odds are extremely good that you'll be able to get equal or better coverage for nearly the same price, perhaps less when the subsidies are taken into effect. Hit the site up on Oct 1st when full pricing and details are available.

Another site that may be useful is this: https://coverageforall.org/

Actually the marketplace will be much larger by orders of magnitude and you should be in a prime position to benefit from it (and Obamacare generally). I would head over to https://www.healthcare.gov/families and check things out. Actual policy details and rates should be available on Oct 1st.

Taking care of this issue is the primary goal of the Healthcare Exchange/Marketplace that will be setup. Insurers cannot deny coverage OR CHARGE YOU MORE because of a pre-existing condition.

Check out more information here: https://www.healthcare.gov/health-insurance-marketplace

If I were you I'd be checking things out first thing on October 1st which is when it goes live. There will probably be a few glitches at first though

President Obama loves small businesses so much that he's driving them bankrupt with expensive mandatory health insurance regulations.

You realize that businesses of the size you typically find in small towns aren't required to do anything in particular by the ACA, right? You know that there's a threshold of 50 employees below which, the ACA is pretty toothless, right?

Of course you do. You wuz just pulling our legs, you wascal! Making sure we knew that the ACA was very careful about not driving small businesses bankrupt.

You may now crawl back under your bridge, M. Troll.

No, not really.

Many states have had laws limiting profits and overhead costs for insurance for a while, and/or have insurance commissions that have to approve premium rate changes. And the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) institutes the 80/20 rule (80% of the premiums must be spent on medical care), which has already taken effect this year.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/mlr-rebates06212012a.html

Blind skepticism is little better than blind faith.

Since your name suggest you chose the right editor, I'll assume there is hope for you.

When you say "they have identical donors" that simlply isn't true. The billionaires that make up Crossroads GPS are not donating to Obama's campaign or PACs, and LGBT PAC is not spending money saying nice things about Romney. There is a choice. If you're in the 1%, or an ultra-conservative religious enthusiast, Romney will undoubtedly have your back. If if you're.. well... everyone who doesn't care to see the desires of the ultra-conservatives and the wealthy prioritized above the rest of us, then it would seem Obama is a clear choice.

If you want to cut out all the bullshit, take two good examples. Read the 2010 Affordable Care Act (as passed)

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

And then Read the Paul Ryan budget (which Romney claims is very similar (if not identical) to his):

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

These are outstanding examples of what each camp would like to do with your money. You can read into the past versions if you like. The orignal Obama Care included the highly controversial Public Option, and the original Ryan plan turned Medicare into Vouchercare. Both were bad ideas if you ask me, but they have since adapted their plans.

If your argument could be amended to: "Both sides are far too influenced by money and special interests." Then I would wholeheartedly agree and highly recommend this book by Lawrence Lessig on how we should go about fixing this problem:

http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576433/

As I asked another poster, which of the coming features of Obamacare are going to increase rates? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but never any specificity as to what's in the ACA that will increase rates.

This is pretty easy to explain, if you can do percentage math. The medical industry increases profits, the insurance industry instreases profits, and the government gets additional tax revenue.

How it works:

It puts the uninsured, who normally only see a doctor when they go to the emergency room, into the same pool as everyone else by forcing them to buy insurance. This has the effect that the large HMO/Hospital corporations get paid their full asking price for treatment, rather than writing it off at its actual value as a cost of being in the business.

Consider the the case before and after for two people, one insured, the other not, going in for the same $500 worth of treatment:

Before:
    Hospital cost: $500
    Patient(I) charge: $1000
    Patient(U) write-off: $500
    Hospital gross profit: $1000 (direct) + $500 (write off)
    Hospital profit after 20% tax: $1000 * (1 - 0.2) = $800 (net) +$200 (tax credit) = $1000 (total net)
    Government net tax income: $0

After:
    Hospital cost: $500
    Patient(I) charge: $1000
    Patient(I) write-off: $1000
    Hospital gross profit: $2000 (direct)
    Hospital profit after 20% tax: $2000 * (1 - 0.2) = $1600 (net) = $1600 (total net)
    Government net tax income: $400

Result:
    Hospital corporations profits: up $600 (= +$600/$1000 = 60%)
    Government net tax income: up $400 (= +$400/$0 = infinity%)

That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your (the collective you) pockets.

This is just the hospitals and the government, and just for emergency care.

Insurance company profits also go up, and they get the multiplier they normally get by charging for medical insurance, malpractice insurance for hospitals and doctors, and liability insurance from hospitals, doctors offices, labs, and medical device, drug, and lab equipment and lab reagent manufacturers.

The current (non-single-payer) plan is basically just a continuation of the AIG/Insurance industry bail-out that was already in progress, and a way of substituting activity for action in order to appear to be doing something.

Note that both Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter both proposed single-payer plans that were shot down by congress (Ted Kennedy was involved in both shootings).

As I asked another poster, which of the coming features of Obamacare are going to increase rates? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but never any specificity as to what's in the ACA that will increase rates.

Don't be coy. What plans are those and how does the ACA facilitate those plans? What will they be able to do under the ACA that they can't do now? Here's what's coming by date. Which of the features are the insurance companies going to use to increase overall rates?

Without the public option, this bill is just a way to further cement and inflate the profits of health insurance companies -- which, last I checked, were the "bad guys" who refuse to cover the cost of necessary treatment.

As a fan of the public option (and hell, government-run healthcare as in the UK), I think the 80% MLR [1] is going to squeeze some efficiency into the insurers - and it may well kill the privatized insurance scam as it exists today.

There is still room for the public option. I'm an incrementalist - yes, the public option (aka medicare part E for everybody) should have been on the table and used as a bludgeon (or sacrificial lamb) to push through other parts of health care reform (some dropped provisions would have been far stronger). However, there will be an opportunity in the future to expand this either from the federal or state levels.

[1] http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/mlr-rebates06212012a.html

I believe we can still see insurance companies dictate the level of care per individual. I have to read more, though.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/value-for-premium/index.html

Whether insurers pass these cost savings to individuals is a craps shoot.

From Value for Premiums:

The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care.

The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit.

The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.

It is difficult to say whether the "savings" will be passed on to you or absorbed at the various levels. However, there are ingredients in the mix to reduce costs. Including no cost preventative care to those that would normally not be able to afford health insurance instead of the previous "no cost" emergency room visits after problems have spiraled out of hand. Further, by expanding the insurance pool risk is spread to more people allowing for smaller individual contributions.

What you may not be considering however, are all the benefits to those that would already subscribe to health insurance. Such as those items covered in the Patient's Bill of Rights which prevents denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and eliminates annual and lifetime dollar amount coverage limits. There are also tax breaks for small businesses that purchase health insurance for employees.

Beyond that, now that a legislative foundation is laid, it will be substantially easier to modify the law to deal with unresolved or poorly resolved issues.

It is difficult to say whether the "savings" will be passed on to you or absorbed at the various levels. However, there are ingredients in the mix to reduce costs. Including no cost preventative care to those that would normally not be able to afford health insurance instead of the previous "no cost" emergency room visits after problems have spiraled out of hand. Further, by expanding the insurance pool risk is spread to more people allowing for smaller individual contributions.

What you may not be considering however, are all the benefits to those that would already subscribe to health insurance. Such as those items covered in the Patient's Bill of Rights which prevents denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and eliminates annual and lifetime dollar amount coverage limits. There are also tax breaks for small businesses that purchase health insurance for employees.

Beyond that, now that a legislative foundation is laid, it will be substantially easier to modify the law to deal with unresolved or poorly resolved issues.

Including conservatives... This legislation is simply people taking care of people in the most equitable way that was politically possible. It is no different in principle to and certainly less onerous than mandated liability coverage for automobiles. Last time I checked, the government wasn't picking up the tab to ensure you were driving a safe and reliable vehicle.

black list people

Something is wrong with the words order in this sentence.

Obamacare eliminates pre-existing conditions.

Good, more money for you to get back from the Obamacare rebate.