Posts tagged obamacare
Posts tagged obamacare
Ok. I don’t see why this is being brought up as an issue. Two economic issues were discussed during the election: raising taxes on income over $250 thousand and Obamacare. True, we didn’t really delve too far into either, but both Dems and Republicans railed against both. Romney even promised to repeal Obamacare right when he entered office if elected. Obviously, the people rejected that idea when they elected Obama. Of course the White House isn’t going to go with this. Why start with conflict.
The worst part is that they aren’t making proposals to improve on the legislation by helping to bring costs down. No! They just want to repeal it outright, maybe keeping some of the more popular parts. This is completely unproductive and it’s been rejected. So why pick this fight? Because they learned nothing. Get prepared people. They’re about to double down on stupid.
This morning on NBC, Mitt Romney said that “there are a number of things that I like” about Obamacare and suggested he would retain: 1. The guarantee that insurance companies couldn’t discriminate against people with pre-exisiting conditions, and 2. The provision that allows young adults to stay on their parents plan.
Just hours later, his campaign quietly told a conservative website that he actually opposes those provisions of Obamacare.
lol mitt y u do this
No, really. What does he actually support/not support?
What is his actual economic plan?
Fox is pushing a Romney campaign falsehood that President Obama rather than Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) plans to gut Medicare as we know it.
Ryan has received strong criticism for his plan to transform Medicare into a voucher system. Trying to deflect the attacks on Ryan’s plan, Fox contributor Angela McGlowan claimed that the Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare.
In fact, the savings the ACA makes to the Medicare program would not cause a decline in quality of care under Medicare, and Ryan has proposed identical savings. But Ryan’s plan goes much further, ending Medicare as we know it by transforming it into a voucher plan.
Well, that didn’t take long, did it?
The claim was also made on “Meet the Press” and on “This Week” by Romney campaign surrogates. Rachel Maddow shot it down on “Meet the Press” and George Stephanopoulos laughed it off on “This Week”.
Re-posting to correct the headline.
big thanks to reddit user CaspianX2 for typing all this out!
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 PPaACA, and it’s become popularized in part because PPaACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPaACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPaACA, 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):
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)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money.
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.
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.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths.
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 life 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.
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26.
No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick.
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.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information.
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
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.
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.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
- Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
- If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%)
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.
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.
Insurer’s now can’t do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need.
Make it so more poor people can get Medicare by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
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.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower-class, basically making it so poor people can get some medical coverage.
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.
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.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
- Doctors’ pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.
- 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 PPaACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPaACA. 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).
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
- 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 in 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.
Showing just how much people pay attention..
By now, many of you will have seen this ridiculous tweet from Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart.com and a prominent conservative noise maker.
What many of you may not know, is who Dred Scott was and why this comment is so vile.
Dred Scott was a slave whose master took him to the free (anti-slavery) state of Illinois. There, Scott sued claiming that he could no longer be a slave since Illinois outlawed slavery. In other words, he claimed his civil rights were being violated, and demanded that the federal courts declare him free. In one of the worst — if not the worst — decisions in American history, the Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott (in 1857) because — and I am not making this up — that all persons of African descent brought into the United States for the purposes of slavery were by definition not US citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in US courts for violation of their civil rights. In other words, whatever the laws of the state in question, even free blacks were not US citizens with rights if they or their ancestors were brought to the US for the purpose of slavery.
So excuse me, Mr. Shapiro, if I can’t quite equate the requirement to buy health insurance or face a fine with the denial of one’s status as a human being and a citizen on grounds of one’s race.
It’s one thing to not like Obamacare and the individial mandate. It’s another to imagine that your problems look anything like Dred Scott’s.
Once again illustrating why I can’t stand conservatives. I’mma say it again in case you ain’t heard: NOTHING IS LIKE SLAVERY…EXCEPT SLAVERY!!! No situation is like the denial of humanity and citizenship, except denial of humanity and citizenship. Stop cheapening the experiences of my ancestors to make a point. You can say you don’t like something without comparing it to slavery.
On the second anniversary of the signing of Affordable Care Act, the bitterness of the health-care fight remains a core fissure in American politics, and the nature of the fissure is clear. The two parties are fighting over whether access to regular medical care ought to be a right or an earned privilege.
To me, and essentially everybody on the liberal side, the answer to that question is obvious. I’m comfortable with the market creating vastly unequal rewards of many kinds. But to make health insurance an earned privilege is to condemn people to physical suffering or even death because they failed to secure a job that gives them health insurance, or they don’t earn enough, or they happened to contract an expensive illness, or a member of their family did. (If you think I am overstating, you ought to read my friend Jonathan Cohn’s book, Sick, which, in addition to explaining the dysfunctionality of the health care system, offers a gut-wrenching portrait of many Americans who saw their lives destroyed by lack of access to decent medical care.) The principle strikes me as nothing short of barbaric.
Toobin says after today’s oral arguments that not only is the individual mandate probably done but perhaps the whole law will be struck down.
I think Jefferey Toobin needs to settle down.
I’ve asked four con law lawyers about the importance of questions to the justices rulings. each one has given a resounding zero with a heavy eye roll.
Still, I’m amazed to watch the- ah, journalistic impression (?) that the individual mandate is now somehow in (more?) trouble because the solicitor general “ummed” a hypothetical with a justice who was voting against the mandate anyway.
It’s highly unlikely oral arguments are going to sway a Justice. Most Justices have made up their minds before formally hearing the case. The point of oral arguments for the Justices is to ask questions and challenge the lawyers in such a way that it persuades the other Justices to adopt their position. All of this speculation about how the oral arguments went is laughable.
President Obama on “Obamacare.” (via kileyrae)
Co-opt that shit, Barry! (via apsies)
I’m on board for this, Obama Cares 2012!(via stfuconservatives)