Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Looks like Reid's state, Nevada got an exemption from Obamacare because it will destabilize the market there:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-waivers-granted-nevada-and-new-hampshire_567465.html

Christ, the amount of right-wing bs sites I had to trawl through to find one legitimate news site which actually said what the hell was going on:

Lasvegas Sun:

Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year.

Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market.

Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.

Together, Golden Rule and Aetna cover 24 percent of Nevada’s insured; but they, along with Sierra Health and MEGA, which cover another 4 percent, are spending nowhere near 80 percent of revenue on health care coverage.

The change is less the feds giving underperforming insurance agencies a free pass than buying time for providers to shape up, or policyholders to ship out with reasonable warning time: Nevada has no law that says if you lose insurance because your insurer shuts down, another company has to pick you up. To prevent that, Health and Human Services determined it had to “provide the opportunity for plans with low ‘medical loss ratios’ to adjust their business models to reach 80 percent” with the reduced, 75 percent mandate for the rest of 2011 — that being the average medical loss ratio that the state’s top 10 insurers currently post.

So one temporary and partial exemption from one part of the law in response to concerns the industry couldn't adapt fast enough in those areas. Yep, this is absolutely the rock hard truth you guys needed to show how much Obamacare sucks, run with it.

Your right, it's not like anyone else has been scrambling for exemptions. It's just this one isolated incident of someone asking for an exemption...

When did the request for exemption go in. If it was like a year or a year and half ago then I'm good. If its like real recent then we have a wee bit of a problem. Also did the Reps and Senators knew they can do that? Getting exempt from ACA as a whole or in portion there of.

 Maddermax wrote:
Christ, the amount of right-wing bs sites I had to trawl through to find one legitimate news site which actually said what the hell was going on

The most irritating part about this phenomenon is the apparent disconnect between the readers who post those, and inability to realize the disdain and contempt these media organizations must have for them.

Can you imagine what rubes Jimmy O'Keefe, for example, imagines his marks audience to be?

I mean, I read a media story and discover it's a tiny skeleton of truth in the center of a mountain of pure bs and obfuscation, I start to get maybe a little insulted, and once they develop a track record of running outlandish lies, such as how Obama is paying for a Muslim cutural center to stay open during the shutdown out of his own pocket - lifted straight from a satire news site with zero fact checking - I'd be disinclined to continue following them, because I would certainly not imagine they respect my intelligence. If nothing else, I'd be pretty leery of being thought the fool when I post their swiftly-debunked drivel elsewhere.

 Jihadin wrote:
When did the request for exemption go in. If it was like a year or a year and half ago then I'm good. If its like real recent then we have a wee bit of a problem. Also did the Reps and Senators knew they can do that? Getting exempt from ACA as a whole or in portion there of.

Here is the paperwork on the request. Wanna bet all the while Reid was drumming Obamacare for the rest of us, he was working behind the scenes for Nevada exemptions?

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/healthwatch/nevmlr.pdf

 Ouze wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
Christ, the amount of right-wing bs sites I had to trawl through to find one legitimate news site which actually said what the hell was going on

The most irritating part about this phenomenon is the apparent disconnect between the readers who post those, and inability to realize the disdain and contempt these media organizations must have for them.

Can you imagine what rubes Jimmy O'Keefe, for example, imagines his marks audience to be?

I mean, I read a media story and discover it's a tiny skeleton of truth in the center of a mountain of pure bs and obfuscation, I start to get maybe a little insulted, and once they develop a track record of running outlandish lies, such as how Obama is paying for a Muslim cutural center to stay open during the shutdown out of his own pocket - lifted straight from a satire news site with zero fact checking - I'd be disinclined to continue following them, because I would certainly not imagine they respect my intelligence. If nothing else, I'd be pretty leery of being thought the fool when I post their swiftly-debunked drivel elsewhere.

Yep.

Take Relapse here - he comes in making big claims implying that Obama made sure that Nevada was completely exempt from "Obamacare", as a personal kick-back for Harry Reid. The truth turns out to be a pretty mundane partial exemption from one small part of the law, in order to cope with local realities. However, the right wing news bubble bounced this idea back and forth so much and so often that any truth in the content is filtered out, and accounts of what is actually happening just don't get out there. The claims being made just do not live up to the realities, but the realities are so boring as to not make news, so disproving them is a pain in the neck.

However, I do wonder what these people who think that this was a special handout to Reid actually believe. Perhaps they think something like this:

*Reid bursts into Oval Office*

Reid: Right Barry, we've successfully implemented Obamacare in all 50 states, which will cause chaos and destroy the American Way! But just one thing...

Obama: What's that Harry?

Reid: Well, we're going to destroy the economies of every state in the union by regulating health insurance, but, well, I kind of like being elected. Perhaps you could give my state a waiver so it won't be wiped out?

Obama: Well, you've done well in advancing my plans to destroy the country, so I suppose yeah. Pity about those reps in other states, but we don't need them. Very well, your one swing state Obamacare exemption will be your reward for your help, minion.

Reid: Excellent! Now then, lets discuss your plan to bring in Sharia Law....

Madder, In case you missed it, Nevada is just the latest in a long line of those trying for exemptions because it's being realized that Obamacare is ill thought. It's not an isolated incident like you would like to say it is.

Relapse wrote:
Madder, In case you missed it, Nevada is just the latest in a long line of those trying for exemptions because it's being realized that Obamacare is ill thought. It's not an isolated incident like you would like to say it is.

Really. Next you're going to try to sell me the line that congress has been exempted from Obamacare by Obama personally and at the behest of democrats. Do it. Go on. You know its a lie. But do it anyway.

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Madder, In case you missed it, Nevada is just the latest in a long line of those trying for exemptions because it's being realized that Obamacare is ill thought. It's not an isolated incident like you would like to say it is.

Really. Next you're going to try to sell me the line that congress has been exempted from Obamacare by Obama personally and at the behest of democrats. Do it. Go on. You know its a lie. But do it anyway.

Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you? May I suggest the irony of the fact that the ones who were so pro Obama are among the first looking for exemptions and getting them from Obamacare?

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Madder, In case you missed it, Nevada is just the latest in a long line of those trying for exemptions because it's being realized that Obamacare is ill thought. It's not an isolated incident like you would like to say it is.

Really. Next you're going to try to sell me the line that congress has been exempted from Obamacare by Obama personally and at the behest of democrats. Do it. Go on. You know its a lie. But do it anyway.

Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you? May I suggest the irony of the fact that the ones who were so pro Obama are among the first looking for exemptions and getting them from Obamacare?

I can make baseless assertions too. Republicans think the moon is made of cheese. See?

Make with the facts, not just warrgrarble.

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Madder, In case you missed it, Nevada is just the latest in a long line of those trying for exemptions because it's being realized that Obamacare is ill thought. It's not an isolated incident like you would like to say it is.

Really. Next you're going to try to sell me the line that congress has been exempted from Obamacare by Obama personally and at the behest of democrats. Do it. Go on. You know its a lie. But do it anyway.

Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you? May I suggest the irony of the fact that the ones who were so pro Obama are among the first looking for exemptions and getting them from Obamacare?

I can make baseless assertions too. Republicans think the moon is made of cheese. See?

Make with the facts, not just warrgrarble.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Relapse wrote:
Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you?

In a just world, this thread would have immediately devolved into:

I'm not your son, pal!
I'm not your pal, guy!
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I'm not your buddy, chum!

and so on


If only one of you were Canadian, perhaps.

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you?

In a just world, this thread would have immediately devolved into:

I'm not your son, pal!
I'm not your pal, guy!
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I'm not your buddy, chum!

and so on



still funny

That's why I enjoy getting into conversations with you and d-usa even though we disagree on a lot. You both have a sense of humor and don't take everthing as an insult.

Are we still in that moment from a few days ago?

 d-usa wrote:
Are we still in that moment from a few days ago?

You're back!!!

I'm just glad we are not Canadian, they would ration moments like that...

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just glad we are not Canadian, they would ration moments like that...

Come now, it's just humor, not cancer medication.

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just glad we are not Canadian, they would ration moments like that...

Come now, it's just humor, not cancer medication.

Laughter is the best medicine they say. That being don, I feel...spent. Night all.

This thing is something I dot get about Americans (and I’m fairly pro American) but why should people have access to affordable healthcare. Or do people not have a right to life.

I know the NHS has its flaws but most of these are as a result of governments messing with things they don’t fully understand which cause issues later on down the line. We pay National insurance which in theory pays for things such as healthcare, (in reality it all goes into a big tax pot and carved up accordingly)

Yes there are horror stories, but there are in all medical systems. The NHS is fairly transparent and post league table of individual surgeon’s results and mortality rates as well so can seem worse however it’s most likely because they are more transparent about it.

Yes some drugs may not be available on the NHS due to cost, but the bigger issues is how medicine is funded and the costs manufacturers such as Bayer charge for these, whist receiving massive international subsidies.

Also another crazy thing is that the USA spends almost double per capita on healthcare than the UK so the money is already in the system to allow the USA to operate a free at the point of need healthcare.

Someone also mentioned earlier that it costs say $2,000 for childbirth, over here if I want a child the only thing I need to worry about is weather I am emotionally ready and whether I can support my family finically, I don’t need to worry about can I afford for my wife to even give birth!

I know this is a bit of a rant – but I have never fully understood objection to affordable healthcare. F someone can rationally explain it I will listen and try and make sense of it.



Some articles that may be of interest

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/10/news/la-ol-britain-nhs-blowback-20120810

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6505773/NHS-better-than-American-health-care.html

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/4364-british-nhs-better-than-american-health-care.html

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Madder, In case you missed it, Nevada is just the latest in a long line of those trying for exemptions because it's being realized that Obamacare is ill thought. It's not an isolated incident like you would like to say it is.

Really. Next you're going to try to sell me the line that congress has been exempted from Obamacare by Obama personally and at the behest of democrats. Do it. Go on. You know its a lie. But do it anyway.

Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you? May I suggest the irony of the fact that the ones who were so pro Obama are among the first looking for exemptions and getting them from Obamacare?

I can make baseless assertions too. Republicans think the moon is made of cheese. See?

Make with the facts, not just warrgrarble.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you?

Holy Condesending Copout Batman!

 Ouze wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Son, you do like to get worked up, don't you?

In a just world, this thread would have immediately devolved into:

I'm not your son, pal!
I'm not your pal, guy!
I'm not your guy, buddy!
I'm not your buddy, chum!

and so on


If only one of you were Canadian, perhaps.

Probably the best way it could of ended I'll work on being more Canadian then, eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cammy wrote:

Also another crazy thing is that the USA spends almost double per capita on healthcare than the UK so the money is already in the system to allow the USA to operate a free at the point of need healthcare.

This always highly amuses me too. Australia and the UK actually spend pretty reasonably similar amounts of government dollars on healthcare as the US, but the US only covers about a third of its population for that price. Talk about not getting value for money. Then again, the US Medicare system is forbidden for using their massive bargaining power for better prices on things, such as drugs, so they end up paying out the wazoo for many things.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just glad we are not Canadian, they would ration moments like that...

Heh... nice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cammy wrote:
I know this is a bit of a rant – but I have never fully understood objection to affordable healthcare. F someone can rationally explain it I will listen and try and make sense of it.

[whembly looks at cammy's flag... and is confused]
I suspect you're from the UK?

The issue isn't that we object to affordable healthcare.

The issue how it's being handled.

Right now, it's a mixture of free-market principle with social safetynet program with a dash of strong government intervention.

It's all incredibly disruptive.

It's impossible right now to get a clear visibility on how much healthcare services cost and how much the providers are getting paid by from insurance/government.

It's basically freakonomics.

Besides, if we truly want to go the way of NHS or Canadian Medicare, serious structural tax & entitlement reforms need to happen first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maddermax wrote:
Then again, the US Medicare system is forbidden for using their massive bargaining power for better prices on things, such as drugs, so they end up paying out the wazoo for many things.

That's not quite right man...

The US Medicare set what they're willing to pay for services & equipment/drugs. The "leftover" is up to the payor / providers.

Most providers (hospitals/MD offices) just writeoff the unpaid amount.

Sometimes the patient is forces to pay this leftover amount... depending on the what it is and their ability to pay.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's part of the problem...

I submit the state of RI:
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131009-healthsource-ri-proposes-26-million-spending-plan.ece

Rhode Island received about $84 million in federal grants to design and launch its version of the online insurance hub, which is a central part of President Obama’s health-care law.

But that grant money must be allocated by Jan. 1, 2015. After that, the federal government has said all exchanges must be financially self-sufficient.

Just one problem... after Jan 1 of '15... the Federal money for that spigot is turned off. There's no more planned funding from the federal government.

So, the state takes over.

Ferguson has proposed $25.8 million in spending for the exchange for the budget year that starts July 1, 2014, according to a request submitted to Governor Chafee.

But she has not proposed a specific way to pay for it and has not detailed how the operation would be paid for in later years. In effect, there is no clear business plan that any entrepreneur launching a start-up knows he has to have.

Ferguson told the crowd at a recent Publick Occurrences forum that the money to run the exchange in 2015 could come from a range of options, including an assessment on claims or an assessment on premiums paid by participants in the exchange….

Others, including Gary Sasse, former director of the Department of Administration and director of the Hassenfeld Institute for Public Leadership at Bryant University, have criticized the lack of a long-term business plan and the potential, financial impact.

“The exchange was created by executive order which can be changed by the next governor, not a statutory law,” Sasse said, “It does not have an identified permanent source of operating funds which could exceed $20 million annually. One option to fund the exchange on a continuing basis could be an insurance premiums tax which may have an impact on health insurance costs in a very competitive economic environment. Is this any way to make public policy?”

That is NOT unique to RI.

This is why states like MO chose not to implement a "state-run exchange".

 easysauce wrote:

now, is that 200 usd less per month, or per year?

Per month, but bear in mind my original monthly premium was a little under 500 USD and the equivalent plan is now a little over 300 USD, both including dental coverage. This is for a 27 year old individual with no dependents, no relevant pre-existing conditions, and no medically significant vices*.

Essentially, from what I can tell, the net effect of the healthcare exchange system has been the reduction in cost of premium plans, and the increase in cost of lower level ones.

 easysauce wrote:

if its per month... well thats a good savings if enough people are actually saving that much, on apples to apples plans. question is, are you in the majority, or minority?

Almost certainly the minority.

Interesting sidenote: even had my premium remained constant, I still would have come nowhere near the threshold for the Cadillac Tax.



*I have a ridiculous insurance policy because I play rugby, so I'm in the doctor's office on a regular basis.

I finally got the site working and signed up. Interestingly, I got the same error I have been getting about a week, and when I opened the live chat window, it immediately fixed itself (before anyone actually joined the live chat session). Inexplicable.

Anyway, the lowest priced plan on the exchange is slightly more (perhaps 12% more) what I am playing now through my job; and the exchange plans are all somewhat worse (although they seem to have zero copays on generic drugs, not sure if that is right). So, no benefit for me on the exchange, but it's not a terrible deal at the bottom end either. Of course, I have 2 disabled dependents, so your mileage may vary. I might not get a great deal because it's immediately obvious that my family is not going to be a net profit, premium wise.

I didn't seem to be eligible for any premium offsets; at least not that I saw. I think I make more than the cutoff for those.

 Ouze wrote:
I finally got the site working and signed up. Interestingly, I got the same error I have been getting about a week, and when I opened the live chat window, it immediately fixed itself (before anyone actually joined the live chat session). Inexplicable.

Anyway, the lowest priced plan on the exchange is slightly more (perhaps 12% more) what I am playing now through my job;

Is that more than the total cost of your employers plan, or do you mean just more than your own contribution to the plan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm just glad we are not Canadian, they would ration moments like that...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maddermax wrote:
Then again, the US Medicare system is forbidden for using their massive bargaining power for better prices on things, such as drugs, so they end up paying out the wazoo for many things.

That's not quite right man...

The US Medicare set what they're willing to pay for services & equipment/drugs. The "leftover" is up to the payor / providers.

Most providers (hospitals/MD offices) just writeoff the unpaid amount.

Sometimes the patient is forces to pay this leftover amount... depending on the what it is and their ability to pay.

Yes, that might be how it works there, but it could save far more money by negotiating deals for pharmaceuticals, as many many other countries do.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/04/tammy-baldwin/uncle-sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517993/

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Here's part of the problem...

I submit the state of RI:
http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131009-healthsource-ri-proposes-26-million-spending-plan.ece

“It does not have an identified permanent source of operating funds which could exceed $20 million annually. One option to fund the exchange on a continuing basis could be an insurance premiums tax which may have an impact on health insurance costs in a very competitive economic environment. Is this any way to make public policy?”

That is NOT unique to RI.

This is why states like MO chose not to implement a "state-run exchange".

20 million is 0.2% of the RI budget, so it's not exactly going to break the bank. The Federal exchanges charge a 0.5% premium on plans to pay for their upkeep anyway, so something similar would probably work for RI, unless they chose to fund it in a different way.

 Maddermax wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I finally got the site working and signed up. Interestingly, I got the same error I have been getting about a week, and when I opened the live chat window, it immediately fixed itself (before anyone actually joined the live chat session). Inexplicable.

Anyway, the lowest priced plan on the exchange is slightly more (perhaps 12% more) what I am playing now through my job;

Is that more than the total cost of your employers plan, or do you mean just more than your own contribution to the plan?

Good point. I have no idea what my employer kicks in.

 Ouze wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I finally got the site working and signed up. Interestingly, I got the same error I have been getting about a week, and when I opened the live chat window, it immediately fixed itself (before anyone actually joined the live chat session). Inexplicable.

Anyway, the lowest priced plan on the exchange is slightly more (perhaps 12% more) what I am playing now through my job;

Is that more than the total cost of your employers plan, or do you mean just more than your own contribution to the plan?

Good point. I have no idea what my employer kicks in.

Will your employer be kicking anything in now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I finally got the site working and signed up. Interestingly, I got the same error I have been getting about a week, and when I opened the live chat window, it immediately fixed itself (before anyone actually joined the live chat session). Inexplicable.

Anyway, the lowest priced plan on the exchange is slightly more (perhaps 12% more) what I am playing now through my job;

Is that more than the total cost of your employers plan, or do you mean just more than your own contribution to the plan?

Good point. I have no idea what my employer kicks in.

Will your employer be kicking anything in now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I tried to delete the double post, guess it didn't take...

 Jihadin wrote:
When did the request for exemption go in. If it was like a year or a year and half ago then I'm good. If its like real recent then we have a wee bit of a problem. Also did the Reps and Senators knew they can do that? Getting exempt from ACA as a whole or in portion there of.

Don't forget;
Democrats wanting exemptions and delays = lawful
Republicans wanting delays = illegal

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
When did the request for exemption go in. If it was like a year or a year and half ago then I'm good. If its like real recent then we have a wee bit of a problem. Also did the Reps and Senators knew they can do that? Getting exempt from ACA as a whole or in portion there of.

Don't forget;
Democrats wanting exemptions and delays = lawful
Republicans wanting delays = illegal

Just like:

Republicans pushing for government spending = good
Democrats pushing for government spending = bad

Of course both of those only work if you approach a subject with the simplest mindset.

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
When did the request for exemption go in. If it was like a year or a year and half ago then I'm good. If its like real recent then we have a wee bit of a problem. Also did the Reps and Senators knew they can do that? Getting exempt from ACA as a whole or in portion there of.

Don't forget;
Democrats wanting exemptions and delays = lawful
Republicans wanting delays = illegal

Just like:

Republicans pushing for government spending = good
Democrats pushing for government spending = bad

Of course both of those only work if you approach a subject with the simplest mindset.

You mean like trying to distract from a perfectly reasonable point with a partisan, barely related counter point?

Simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats deferred parts of the ACA and claimed that what they were doing was perfectly lawful. When the Republicans wanted part deferred they were told that it was illegal and unconstitutional. Its hard to reconcile those opposing positions, and that is coming from someone who intends to register as an Independent when the time comes.

 djones520 wrote:
Will your employer be kicking anything in now?

Yes. we got a big email from HR regarding the exchanges saying nothing was going to change for our 2014 plan and it already met the standards.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Will your employer be kicking anything in now?

Yes. we got a big email from HR regarding the exchanges saying nothing was going to change for our 2014 plan and it already met the standards.

So the part you have to pay still went up, or it didn't?

Sorry, I'm not trying to do anything gotcha here, I'm genuinly curious. I'll be immune from Obamacare for my whole life due to my Tricare association, so I'm haven't had to see how any of this works.