Can someone in an unbiased way explain to me what obamacare is.
- Thread starter deleted5
- Start date
grown-ninja
Active member
i have my first grown up job working in finance in nyc, after cost of living, student loans (state college size loans), bills and commuting costs i dont have enough money to opt into my works plan, obama gave me coverage untill im 26 and get a raise so i can get my own plan...respect to the dude, i dont support him but hell no reason we should be the only western country without it
PJS.
Active member
and, boom.
"What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
(Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the PDF, not the page numbers of the document itself)
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 766 )
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 235, sec. 2501 )
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 684, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 518, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 49, sec. 1101, Page 64, sec. 2704, and Page 65, sec. 2702 )
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2705 )
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 942, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 34, sec. 2714 )
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704 and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2794 )
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 398, sec. 3301 )
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 718, sec. 6402 )
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 363, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 511, sec. 4202 )
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 55, sec. 1103 )
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 849, sec. 9023 )
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 41, sec. 1101 )
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9003 )
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9002 )
Any new health plans must provide preventive care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2713 )
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. ( Citation: Page 837, sec. 9015 )
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704, Page 65, sec. 2701, and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 164, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )
Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?
Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here.
Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...
Medicaid can now be used by everyone up to 133% of the poverty line (basically, a lot more poor people can get insurance) ( Citation: Page 198, sec. 2001 ) (Note: The recent court ruling says that states can opt out of this and that the Federal government cannot penalize them by withholding Medicaid funding, but as far as I can tell, nothing is stopping the Federal government from simply just offering incentives to those who do opt to do it, instead)
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 157, sec. 1421 )
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. ( Citation: Page 174, sec. 4980H )
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1302 )
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( Citation: Page 820, sec. 9005 )
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. ( Citation: Page 107, sec. 1311 )
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 100, sec. 1312 )
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
Raises the bar for how much your medical expenses must cost before you can start deducting them from your taxes (Thanks to Redditor cnash6 for the correction!).
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). ( Citation: Page 117, sec. 1332 )
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventive care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Of course, because so many people are arguing about it, and some of the people arguing about it don't really care whether or not what they're saying is true, there are a lot of things people think the bill does that just aren't true. Here's a few of them:
Obamacare has death panels!: That sounds so cartoonishly evil it must be true, right? Well, no. No part of the bill says anything about appointing people to decide whether or not someone dies. The decision over whether or not your claim is approved is still in the hands of your insurer. However, now there's an appeals process so if your claim gets turned down, you can challenge that. And the government watches that appeals process to make sure it's not being unfair to customers. So if anything the PPACA is trying to stop the death panels. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
What about the Independent Medical Advisory Board? Death Panels!: The Independent Medical Advisory Board is intended to give recommendations on how to save Medicare costs per person, deliver more efficient and effective care, improve access to services, and eliminate waste. However, they have no real power. They put together a recommendation to put before Congress, and Congress votes on it, and the President has power to veto it. What's more, they are specifically told that their recommendation will not ration health care, raise premiums or co-pays, restrict benefits, or restrict eligibility. In other words, they need to find ways to save money without reducing care for patients. So no death panels. In any sense of the (stupid) term. ( Citation: Page 426, sec. 3403 )
Obamacare gives free insurance to illegal immigrants!: Actually, there are multiple parts of the bill that specifically state that the recipient of tax credits and other good stuff must be a legal resident of the United States. And while the bill doesn't specifically forbid illegals from buying insurance or getting treated at hospitals, neither did the laws in the US before the PPACA. So even at worst, illegals still have just as much trouble getting medical care as they used to. ( Citations: Page 141, sec. 1402, Page 142, sec. 1411, Page 144, sec. 1411, Page 151, sec. 1412 )
Obamacare uses taxpayer money for abortions!: One part of the bill says, essentially, that the folks who wrote this bill aren't touching that issue with a ten foot pole. It basically passes the buck on to the states, who can choose to allow insurance plans that cover abortions, or they can choose to not allow them. Obama may be pro-choice, but that is not reflected in the PPACA. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 1303 )
Obamacare won't let me keep the insurance I have!: The PPACA actually very specifically says you can keep the insurance you have if you want. ( Citation: Page 74, sec. 1251 )
Obamacare will make the government get between me and my doctor!: The PPACA very specifically says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who is in charge of much of the bill), is absolutely not to promote any regulation that hinders a patient's ability to get health care, to speak with their doctor, or have access to a full range of treatment options. ( Citation: Page 184, sec. 1554 )
Obamacare has a public option! That makes it bad!: The public option (which would give people the option of getting insurance from a government-run insurer, thus the name), whether you like it or not, was taken out of the bill before it was passed. You can still see where it used to be, though. ( Citation: Page 111, sec. 1323 (the first one) )
Obamacare will cost trillions and put us in massive debt!: The PPACA will cost a lot of money... at first. $1.7 Trillion. Yikes, right? But that's just to get the ball rolling. You see, amongst the things built into the bill are new taxes - on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, tanning salons, and a slight increase in taxes on people who make over $200K (an increase of less than 1%). Additionally, the bill cuts some stuff from Medicare that's not really working, and generally tries to make everything work more efficiently. Also, the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost.
Obamacare is twice as long as War and Peace!: War and Peace is 587,287 words long. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, depending on which version you're referring to, is between 300,000-400,000 words long. Don't get me wrong, it's still very long, but it's not as long as War and Peace. Also, it bears mention that bills are often long. In 2005, Republicans passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005, which was almost as long as the PPACA, and no one raised a stink about it.
The people who passed Obamacare didn't even read it!: Are you kidding? They had been reading it over and over for a half a year. This thing was being tossed around in debates for ages. And it went through numerous revisions, but every time it was revised, it was just adding, removing, or changing small parts of it, not rewriting the whole thing. And every time it was revised, the new version of the bill was published online for everyone to see. The final time it was edited, there may not have been time to re-read the entire thing before voting on it, but there wasn't a need to, because everyone had already read it all. The only thing people needed to read was the revision, which there was plenty of time to do.
Pelosi said something like, "we'll have to pass the bill before reading it"!: The actual quote is "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy", and she's talking about all the lies and false rumors that were spreading about it. Things had gotten so absurd that by this point many had given up on trying to have an honest dialogue about it, since people kept worrying about things that had no basis in reality. Pelosi was simply trying to say that once the bill is finalized and passed, then everyone can look at it and see, without question, what is actually in the thing (as opposed to some new amendment you heard on the radio that they were going to put in).
I think those are some of the bigger ones. I'll try to get to more as I think of them.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!"
"What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
(Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the PDF, not the page numbers of the document itself)
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 766 )
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 235, sec. 2501 )
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 684, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 518, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 49, sec. 1101, Page 64, sec. 2704, and Page 65, sec. 2702 )
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2705 )
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 942, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 34, sec. 2714 )
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704 and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2794 )
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 398, sec. 3301 )
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 718, sec. 6402 )
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 363, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 511, sec. 4202 )
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 55, sec. 1103 )
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 849, sec. 9023 )
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 41, sec. 1101 )
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9003 )
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 819, sec. 9002 )
Any new health plans must provide preventive care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2713 )
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. ( Citation: Page 837, sec. 9015 )
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704, Page 65, sec. 2701, and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 164, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )
Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?
Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here.
Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...
Medicaid can now be used by everyone up to 133% of the poverty line (basically, a lot more poor people can get insurance) ( Citation: Page 198, sec. 2001 ) (Note: The recent court ruling says that states can opt out of this and that the Federal government cannot penalize them by withholding Medicaid funding, but as far as I can tell, nothing is stopping the Federal government from simply just offering incentives to those who do opt to do it, instead)
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 157, sec. 1421 )
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty. ( Citation: Page 174, sec. 4980H )
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1302 )
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( Citation: Page 820, sec. 9005 )
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. ( Citation: Page 107, sec. 1311 )
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 100, sec. 1312 )
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
Raises the bar for how much your medical expenses must cost before you can start deducting them from your taxes (Thanks to Redditor cnash6 for the correction!).
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). ( Citation: Page 117, sec. 1332 )
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventive care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Of course, because so many people are arguing about it, and some of the people arguing about it don't really care whether or not what they're saying is true, there are a lot of things people think the bill does that just aren't true. Here's a few of them:
Obamacare has death panels!: That sounds so cartoonishly evil it must be true, right? Well, no. No part of the bill says anything about appointing people to decide whether or not someone dies. The decision over whether or not your claim is approved is still in the hands of your insurer. However, now there's an appeals process so if your claim gets turned down, you can challenge that. And the government watches that appeals process to make sure it's not being unfair to customers. So if anything the PPACA is trying to stop the death panels. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
What about the Independent Medical Advisory Board? Death Panels!: The Independent Medical Advisory Board is intended to give recommendations on how to save Medicare costs per person, deliver more efficient and effective care, improve access to services, and eliminate waste. However, they have no real power. They put together a recommendation to put before Congress, and Congress votes on it, and the President has power to veto it. What's more, they are specifically told that their recommendation will not ration health care, raise premiums or co-pays, restrict benefits, or restrict eligibility. In other words, they need to find ways to save money without reducing care for patients. So no death panels. In any sense of the (stupid) term. ( Citation: Page 426, sec. 3403 )
Obamacare gives free insurance to illegal immigrants!: Actually, there are multiple parts of the bill that specifically state that the recipient of tax credits and other good stuff must be a legal resident of the United States. And while the bill doesn't specifically forbid illegals from buying insurance or getting treated at hospitals, neither did the laws in the US before the PPACA. So even at worst, illegals still have just as much trouble getting medical care as they used to. ( Citations: Page 141, sec. 1402, Page 142, sec. 1411, Page 144, sec. 1411, Page 151, sec. 1412 )
Obamacare uses taxpayer money for abortions!: One part of the bill says, essentially, that the folks who wrote this bill aren't touching that issue with a ten foot pole. It basically passes the buck on to the states, who can choose to allow insurance plans that cover abortions, or they can choose to not allow them. Obama may be pro-choice, but that is not reflected in the PPACA. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 1303 )
Obamacare won't let me keep the insurance I have!: The PPACA actually very specifically says you can keep the insurance you have if you want. ( Citation: Page 74, sec. 1251 )
Obamacare will make the government get between me and my doctor!: The PPACA very specifically says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who is in charge of much of the bill), is absolutely not to promote any regulation that hinders a patient's ability to get health care, to speak with their doctor, or have access to a full range of treatment options. ( Citation: Page 184, sec. 1554 )
Obamacare has a public option! That makes it bad!: The public option (which would give people the option of getting insurance from a government-run insurer, thus the name), whether you like it or not, was taken out of the bill before it was passed. You can still see where it used to be, though. ( Citation: Page 111, sec. 1323 (the first one) )
Obamacare will cost trillions and put us in massive debt!: The PPACA will cost a lot of money... at first. $1.7 Trillion. Yikes, right? But that's just to get the ball rolling. You see, amongst the things built into the bill are new taxes - on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, tanning salons, and a slight increase in taxes on people who make over $200K (an increase of less than 1%). Additionally, the bill cuts some stuff from Medicare that's not really working, and generally tries to make everything work more efficiently. Also, the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost.
Obamacare is twice as long as War and Peace!: War and Peace is 587,287 words long. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, depending on which version you're referring to, is between 300,000-400,000 words long. Don't get me wrong, it's still very long, but it's not as long as War and Peace. Also, it bears mention that bills are often long. In 2005, Republicans passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005, which was almost as long as the PPACA, and no one raised a stink about it.
The people who passed Obamacare didn't even read it!: Are you kidding? They had been reading it over and over for a half a year. This thing was being tossed around in debates for ages. And it went through numerous revisions, but every time it was revised, it was just adding, removing, or changing small parts of it, not rewriting the whole thing. And every time it was revised, the new version of the bill was published online for everyone to see. The final time it was edited, there may not have been time to re-read the entire thing before voting on it, but there wasn't a need to, because everyone had already read it all. The only thing people needed to read was the revision, which there was plenty of time to do.
Pelosi said something like, "we'll have to pass the bill before reading it"!: The actual quote is "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy", and she's talking about all the lies and false rumors that were spreading about it. Things had gotten so absurd that by this point many had given up on trying to have an honest dialogue about it, since people kept worrying about things that had no basis in reality. Pelosi was simply trying to say that once the bill is finalized and passed, then everyone can look at it and see, without question, what is actually in the thing (as opposed to some new amendment you heard on the radio that they were going to put in).
I think those are some of the bigger ones. I'll try to get to more as I think of them.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!"
TechnoPotamus
Active member
I'm 25. I graduated from CU in 2009 with a finance degree and wasn't able to get a solid job at all after college. I decided to go back to school to get an accounting degree as well, which I'm 1/3 of the way through now, and because I don't have a full time job since I'm a student, obamacare allows me to stay on my mom's insurance plan.
this makes it way more affordable than the alternative of me having to pay for benefits on my own, simply put I would have to go without health insurance if that was the case because it would cost an insane amount.
If Romney is elected, he has stated he'll repeal obamacare immediately. For what reason other than to leave a huge amount of us recent graduates completely fucked and shit out of luck, I can't imagine. Obamacare is extremely important to a very large number of people our age and their families.
this makes it way more affordable than the alternative of me having to pay for benefits on my own, simply put I would have to go without health insurance if that was the case because it would cost an insane amount.
If Romney is elected, he has stated he'll repeal obamacare immediately. For what reason other than to leave a huge amount of us recent graduates completely fucked and shit out of luck, I can't imagine. Obamacare is extremely important to a very large number of people our age and their families.
TechnoPotamus
Active member
suck a dick you fucking tool.
so take out the very small paragraph I wrote. wow, what an advanced concept for your little brain to handle. you've contributed nothing to this thread so fuck off
so take out the very small paragraph I wrote. wow, what an advanced concept for your little brain to handle. you've contributed nothing to this thread so fuck off
Amadeus.
Active member
It will actually end up costing you less.
Prior to the affordable care act the healthcare market placed a huge burden on the states. On average in a year states spent 20 billion dollars for uncompensated care because of americans who don't have insurance. Now with the affordable care act states will save 70-80 billion dollars in over five years.
You were already paying for everyone's healthcare in taxes. This is saving you tax dollars.
Also there is also wellness and preventive care. So instead of paying for some dope fiends prison time (more tax dollars) he gets the help he needs and becomes a functioning member of society.
Also the affordable care act is already fully payed for through an excise tax on high cost employer sponsored healthcare coverage. A tax on insurance companies, not you.
Prior to the affordable care act the healthcare market placed a huge burden on the states. On average in a year states spent 20 billion dollars for uncompensated care because of americans who don't have insurance. Now with the affordable care act states will save 70-80 billion dollars in over five years.
You were already paying for everyone's healthcare in taxes. This is saving you tax dollars.
Also there is also wellness and preventive care. So instead of paying for some dope fiends prison time (more tax dollars) he gets the help he needs and becomes a functioning member of society.
Also the affordable care act is already fully payed for through an excise tax on high cost employer sponsored healthcare coverage. A tax on insurance companies, not you.
Beepboop123
Member
FREE HEALTHCARE! What's so bad about that besides
TijmenDal
Active member
Basically it's a federal law that makes having a health-insurance mandatory.
What happens now is that people that do have insurance pay a shit ton of money to get 'free' care when they need it. A LOT of the money gets funneled down to people that don't have money/don't want insurance to cover their healthcare bills. That's why insurance is so expensive.
Because insurance is privatized, they can ask whatever they want and because hospitals are fucking expensive (and have to pay for people that just can't afford it) it's pretty much a catch-22 shithole.
Obamacare is an act that tries to bring down the cost of healthcare by providing an optionalhealth-insurance for people that don't have money to get an expensive one. The option to get a privatized insurance is still allowed, as long as you have something. As a result of the Obamacare, private insurances will drop because hospitals get covered by the federal government for people that really can't afford it (which redirects to the price of private insurance).
Bottom line: everybody gets health-care, people keep paying the same amount of money.
And I know it's supposed to be unbiased, but the USA will be a better place.
What happens now is that people that do have insurance pay a shit ton of money to get 'free' care when they need it. A LOT of the money gets funneled down to people that don't have money/don't want insurance to cover their healthcare bills. That's why insurance is so expensive.
Because insurance is privatized, they can ask whatever they want and because hospitals are fucking expensive (and have to pay for people that just can't afford it) it's pretty much a catch-22 shithole.
Obamacare is an act that tries to bring down the cost of healthcare by providing an optionalhealth-insurance for people that don't have money to get an expensive one. The option to get a privatized insurance is still allowed, as long as you have something. As a result of the Obamacare, private insurances will drop because hospitals get covered by the federal government for people that really can't afford it (which redirects to the price of private insurance).
Bottom line: everybody gets health-care, people keep paying the same amount of money.
And I know it's supposed to be unbiased, but the USA will be a better place.
volvotom
Active member
I am currently studying healthcare policy in graduate school. There is a lot to this bill. The best way to learn more about it in an unbiased manner is to read what the 2 big non-partisan healthcare thinktanks have to say about it. check out the Kaiser Family Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. kff.org and rwjf.org
KFF has a great video giving a short overview.
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
KFF has a great video giving a short overview.
/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
Tex.
Active member
Here is how obamacare has already effected my brothers medical insurance....
My brother, who is currently 24... was born with a heart arrhythmia... a pretty serious one at that.. I wont get into the details.. But, pretty much ever since my brother was 10 he goes in 4 times a year for routine tests, i can't recall the medical terminology at the moment... but i'm sure some asshole is going to come on here and ask me for sources.... Anyway.. he is covered under my mom's healthcare and ever since he was 10 has only had to make a $50 co-pay for his routine tests and check-ups. But after Obamacare was passed, my brothers insurance policies and payments changed... Now instead of only having to pay a $50 co-pay, he is also later charged with a $270 dollar "facility fee."..... for what reason? i dont know the specifics because my family doesn't tell me these things (they don't want me to worry) but apparanlty its due to a change in the type of coverage my mom has for my brother and its a change that obama care permits companies to do... So, i can tell you for sure that Obamacare's changes to healthcare, health insurance, etc. Is now costing my brother a minimum of 270 dollars more per visit.
That's just a story from personal experience... take what you want from it...
My brother, who is currently 24... was born with a heart arrhythmia... a pretty serious one at that.. I wont get into the details.. But, pretty much ever since my brother was 10 he goes in 4 times a year for routine tests, i can't recall the medical terminology at the moment... but i'm sure some asshole is going to come on here and ask me for sources.... Anyway.. he is covered under my mom's healthcare and ever since he was 10 has only had to make a $50 co-pay for his routine tests and check-ups. But after Obamacare was passed, my brothers insurance policies and payments changed... Now instead of only having to pay a $50 co-pay, he is also later charged with a $270 dollar "facility fee."..... for what reason? i dont know the specifics because my family doesn't tell me these things (they don't want me to worry) but apparanlty its due to a change in the type of coverage my mom has for my brother and its a change that obama care permits companies to do... So, i can tell you for sure that Obamacare's changes to healthcare, health insurance, etc. Is now costing my brother a minimum of 270 dollars more per visit.
That's just a story from personal experience... take what you want from it...
volvotom
Active member
Facility fees are entirely unrelated to Obamacare.
They basically work something like this:
Unlike a physician’s office where one bill is generated for the visit,
services received in a hospital-based clinic results in two bills. The
physician charges for the professional services that are provided and
the hospital charges a facility fee for the use of the space,
equipment, supplies and support staff. Often the facility fee far
exceeds the physician’s fee and results in an additional co-pay.
Because of the additional expense, some private payors have refused to
pay the facility portion of the fee, leaving the patient holding the bag
for the full amount. Needless to say, patients are not happy and many
are seeking their care elsewhere. However, this practice is legal under
Medicare.
in a nut-shell it's a separate fee that many hospitals are (and have been) charging for use of their facilities and equipment. It's essentially a separate co-pay.
They basically work something like this:
Unlike a physician’s office where one bill is generated for the visit,
services received in a hospital-based clinic results in two bills. The
physician charges for the professional services that are provided and
the hospital charges a facility fee for the use of the space,
equipment, supplies and support staff. Often the facility fee far
exceeds the physician’s fee and results in an additional co-pay.
Because of the additional expense, some private payors have refused to
pay the facility portion of the fee, leaving the patient holding the bag
for the full amount. Needless to say, patients are not happy and many
are seeking their care elsewhere. However, this practice is legal under
Medicare.
in a nut-shell it's a separate fee that many hospitals are (and have been) charging for use of their facilities and equipment. It's essentially a separate co-pay.
volvotom
Active member
It comes down to the physician providing the care and whether or not he or she owns (or leases) the location of the tests or has to use a contracted hospital "facility" depending on the nature of the test and equipment needed. It is possible that if he were switch to a different physician who had the facility and equipment to do the tests himself there would be no facility fee. However, given your explanation of his complex history, switching would not be to his benefit.
Here's a Washington Post article that explains "facility fees"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502910.html
Here's a Washington Post article that explains "facility fees"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502910.html
Phil-X-
Active member
Since everyone is throwing a biased opinion in here I guess I will too!
So say I'm 19, healthy, strong a buck and am covered by my parents insurance or pay my own insurance. Pretty good shit? The way its always been done. Health care is private and I choose to have it or have a job that supplies it. Now I have to pay anywhere from $700-$5,000 a year, regardless of my health or if I need any treatment. My money gets to be used to help support those that are sick and too poor to afford health care themselves. So basically we are keeping the poor/sick around and giving them handouts to something that we normally pay premium for. And it makes our hospital system suck.
thats my view on it, so yea.
So say I'm 19, healthy, strong a buck and am covered by my parents insurance or pay my own insurance. Pretty good shit? The way its always been done. Health care is private and I choose to have it or have a job that supplies it. Now I have to pay anywhere from $700-$5,000 a year, regardless of my health or if I need any treatment. My money gets to be used to help support those that are sick and too poor to afford health care themselves. So basically we are keeping the poor/sick around and giving them handouts to something that we normally pay premium for. And it makes our hospital system suck.
thats my view on it, so yea.
Charlie_Kelly
Active member
Romney is gonna fuck us over if he repeals it. If anyone read what it does, the main thing is it keeps insurance companies from fucking people over. Why would you ever want to repeal an act that acts as a safety net? People against Obamacare either dont pay for insurance or are just plain stupid.
howlongcanausern
Active member
so funny when people say 'i can't afford healthcare' yet manage to have personal computer, home internet, cell phone, and personal vehicle.
TechnoPotamus
Active member
since you are 19, you're still pretty "shielded" from the painful realities of the real world after college thankfully. Once you're out of college it is very different and you probably won't feel the same.
it also is clear that you don't fully understand obamacare fo the way insurance works. no offense at all, you're a good member from what i recall but life is very different after college. (speaking from personal experience)
it also is clear that you don't fully understand obamacare fo the way insurance works. no offense at all, you're a good member from what i recall but life is very different after college. (speaking from personal experience)
Nurgle
Active member
I cant afford health care... Hence why I'm on my parents.
Yes, I have a computer, that I got when I graduated, 3 years ago, yes, I have internet, because I pay $500 a month for a room in someones house, and the wifi comes with, I have a $6 a month cell phone bill, and a personal vehicle that took me 4-5 years to get.
Try again?
Yes, I have a computer, that I got when I graduated, 3 years ago, yes, I have internet, because I pay $500 a month for a room in someones house, and the wifi comes with, I have a $6 a month cell phone bill, and a personal vehicle that took me 4-5 years to get.
Try again?
Errl
Active member
Wow, I actually feel like I can talk about healthcare and its reform now. Before I had pretty much no idea what the heck it was all about (but knew it was a good thing thanks to good ol' maw and paw!). That video definitely has provided me with a good (yet still basic) understanding of all of this. I thought that the 938 billion (I think that's what the video stated) was a whole lot more than 3% of the budget before seeing that.
volvotom
Active member
I hate talking with people about this topic who do not have the least bit of understanding about it. Sometimes I wish I could force people to watch that video before they talk to me about this topic. Obviously with my grad school friends it's different. We get all wonky about a lot of this stuff.
Sneaky_Aziz
Member
To put it simply, obamacare is when you fill a size 8.5 cowboy boot with green chiles and feed it to AR6rider.
grown-ninja
Active member
its not just unaffordable is crazy, 700-5k isnt out of control...say your parents lost their job for some reason, you know it averages between $17,000-30,000 a year to cover your family and that's with a not so great plan.
Wallisch_pl
Active member
Only wealthy people have to pay the extra tax
SeanTom
Active member
the video def helped explain the bill to me. I have to say though, after watching it and with the better understanding than i did 10 minutes ago, i can see why people attack the health care reform and label it as socialist. It does seem like it would be great to have and i'm still too young (19) to fully see what it could do for me but it looks promising.
Will_
Member
The affordable healthcare act lowers costs by force, regulating what insurance companies can and cant do in order to make a profit. This seems to be necessary, since insurance costs are so high, and many people cant afford it. So the logical thing to do is put laws in place designed to lower costs, right?
Lets think.
Why are insurance costs so high? The root cause, of course, is that healthcare costs are so high. I could go on and on about why, malpractice lawsuits, lack of competition, equipment costs, whatever. It would take forever. But that isnt the point. This law doesnt deal with healthcare costs, it deals with health insurance costs (insurance being the thing that protects from paying high healthcare costs). Why are these costs so high? The companies make a reasonable profit, most of the time, but even if these companies just broke even, costs would still be very high.
The answer is, lack of competition. Insurance companies cannot compete across state lines, and there are all sorts of other regulations limiting the freedom of these companies. if insurance companies competed nationally, I beleive that many of the improvements forced by this law would happen naturally. Like, buy my insurance! I wont turn you down for (insert reason outlined in ppaca). or, buy my insurance! it costs less than everyone elses! Its basic economics. Competition forces higher quality and lower costs.
The point is, force things without getting to the root cause of the problem. You cant fix problems caused by regulation with more regulation. Take the politics out of it. Its a science.
Lets think.
Why are insurance costs so high? The root cause, of course, is that healthcare costs are so high. I could go on and on about why, malpractice lawsuits, lack of competition, equipment costs, whatever. It would take forever. But that isnt the point. This law doesnt deal with healthcare costs, it deals with health insurance costs (insurance being the thing that protects from paying high healthcare costs). Why are these costs so high? The companies make a reasonable profit, most of the time, but even if these companies just broke even, costs would still be very high.
The answer is, lack of competition. Insurance companies cannot compete across state lines, and there are all sorts of other regulations limiting the freedom of these companies. if insurance companies competed nationally, I beleive that many of the improvements forced by this law would happen naturally. Like, buy my insurance! I wont turn you down for (insert reason outlined in ppaca). or, buy my insurance! it costs less than everyone elses! Its basic economics. Competition forces higher quality and lower costs.
The point is, force things without getting to the root cause of the problem. You cant fix problems caused by regulation with more regulation. Take the politics out of it. Its a science.
howlongcanausern
Active member
so why does universal health care work in other countries, with lower costs?
Fun_dip
Active member
Health Care for all. Of course taxes will have to go up somewhat to cover it.Everyone agrees health care for all would be fucking sweet, but the thing is conservatives(Republicans) don't want to raise taxes even more. People bitch enough already about taxes so if there was a hike wouldn't it just become ridiculous. Another thing from the Republican view is people already abuse Welfare so free healthcare would be the same sort of thing of people just milking the system.
Democratic POV is everyone deserves equal rights to medical care no matter their financial status. Other countries have it and seem to love it so why wouldn't it work here?
I forget what movie it was that I watched, but he traveled to countries where there was free health care and they all loved it, but when asked if it would work in the US not a single one said yes.
That is what I agree with. It would be great if we could get people to use the system appropriately. Personally I dont think that would happen. I think people would milk the shit out of free healthcare.
Democratic POV is everyone deserves equal rights to medical care no matter their financial status. Other countries have it and seem to love it so why wouldn't it work here?
I forget what movie it was that I watched, but he traveled to countries where there was free health care and they all loved it, but when asked if it would work in the US not a single one said yes.
That is what I agree with. It would be great if we could get people to use the system appropriately. Personally I dont think that would happen. I think people would milk the shit out of free healthcare.
grown-ninja
Active member
because other countries arent war machines like the us and actually spend their money on helping their citizens not just thinking of new ways to screw them
Will_
Member
because there are no insurace companies.. the government just pays for it..
which is fine, but incredibly high taxes are necessary to fund it. So economic gain is lost both because there are no insurance companies making a profit, and through higher taxes. its a trade off.
A government can spend as much as it wants, and tax as much as it wants. Its easy to make the argument that its justified, necessary for economic equality and fairness. Anyone can say that health insurance is a right and have people cheer. Anyone can say that every human deserves a house regardless of whether or not they can afford it. fine. tax more, spend more.
But the fact is, it isnt sustainable! It just isnt! do you really think you can just spend money that you dont have with no consequences? our country is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt. It doesnt matter what you think you deserve. We cant afford it. And if we keep pretending we can, we will end up just like the family that tries to live beyond their means. Ask them what happens.
These universal healthcare systems in other countries work because these countries have money from their FORMER CAPITALISM. However they are NOT SUSTAINABLE. These countries will go bankrupt.
Again, take the politics out of it. Its a science. Its just the way it works, and we are so much better off if we try to work with the laws of economics instead of pretending they dont exist.
which is fine, but incredibly high taxes are necessary to fund it. So economic gain is lost both because there are no insurance companies making a profit, and through higher taxes. its a trade off.
A government can spend as much as it wants, and tax as much as it wants. Its easy to make the argument that its justified, necessary for economic equality and fairness. Anyone can say that health insurance is a right and have people cheer. Anyone can say that every human deserves a house regardless of whether or not they can afford it. fine. tax more, spend more.
But the fact is, it isnt sustainable! It just isnt! do you really think you can just spend money that you dont have with no consequences? our country is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt. It doesnt matter what you think you deserve. We cant afford it. And if we keep pretending we can, we will end up just like the family that tries to live beyond their means. Ask them what happens.
These universal healthcare systems in other countries work because these countries have money from their FORMER CAPITALISM. However they are NOT SUSTAINABLE. These countries will go bankrupt.
Again, take the politics out of it. Its a science. Its just the way it works, and we are so much better off if we try to work with the laws of economics instead of pretending they dont exist.