The Goat Pen

The stimulus will keep unemployment below 8%


BHO

Gator by God's Grace wrote:I dont think anybody in their right mind thought Obama would be able to do a whole lot with the economy when he got elected, much less when the Repubs took over congress (which assured he wasnt going to get much done on the economy or anything else really).

the people unemployed , underemployed and living in foreclosed homes will probably be less forgiving

Health care is a two edge sword for Romney because there are a lot of quotes from him on it (including a quote in the past 5 years that the Massachusetts plan should be adopted by the feds).

Even worse was his comments yesterday. Repeal and replace Obamacare. What will he keep?

1) Keeping your insurance
2) Help each state to "ensure that every American has access to health care"
3) "Gotta make sure that those with pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured"
4) "And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It's becoming prohibitively expensive."

Leaves him open to a couple of giant questions. How will you do the above and most importantly, how will you pay for it (after all, you can't use the mandate that there he used many, many times as necessary)

Those general statements will fly on fox and on the stump, but he will have to answer them at the debate.

eCat wrote:

Gator by God's Grace wrote:I dont think anybody in their right mind thought Obama would be able to do a whole lot with the economy when he got elected, much less when the Repubs took over congress (which assured he wasnt going to get much done on the economy or anything else really).

the people unemployed , underemployed and living in foreclosed homes will probably be less forgiving

yep, if Romney can articulate what he will do. Getting rid of whatever Obama did is not going to fly very well.

Owlman wrote:Health care is a two edge sword for Romney because there are a lot of quotes from him on it (including a quote in the past 5 years that the Massachusetts plan should be adopted by the feds).

Even worse was his comments yesterday. Repeal and replace Obamacare. What will he keep?

1) Keeping your insurance
2) Help each state to "ensure that every American has access to health care"
3) "Gotta make sure that those with pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured"
4) "And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It's becoming prohibitively expensive."

Leaves him open to a couple of giant questions. How will you do the above and most importantly, how will you pay for it (after all, you can't use the mandate that there he used many, many times as necessary)

Those general statements will fly on fox and on the stump, but he will have to answer them at the debate.

that really isn't anything to the "conservatives " that make up the GOP. They are used to having the government give them stuff and then demand tax breaks to not pay for it. Just don't by god give it to the people that can't pay taxes.

The hard core libertarian movement really came down on Rand Paul for endorsing Romney but many believe he is hedging his bets thinking that Romney has no chance but he can't be seen as a potential reason why voter turnout was so low or against Romney.

I think it was a smart move. Rand Paul is a trojan horse to the GOP and is going to go scorched earth if he ever gets elected President

And frankly, I don't think Romney is anything more than a republican version of Obama...

What he said.

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:

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 actual document, not the page numbers of the PDF file)

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 747 )
•It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 216, 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 665, 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 499, 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 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, 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 47, 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 923, 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 14, sec. 2711 )
•Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 )
•No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704 and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
•Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 47, 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 379, sec. 3301 )
•Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, 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 699, sec. 6402 )
•Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 344, 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 492, 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 36, 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 830, 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 22, 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 800, sec. 9003 )
•Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9002 )
•Any new health plans must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 14, 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 818, 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 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, 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 145, 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...
•Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 138, sec. 1421 )
•Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
•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 14, sec. 2711 )
•Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 62, 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 801, 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 88, 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 81, 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.
•The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

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 98, 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.

where does it say that my insurance cost will go down as a result of this?

and is an HMO considered a cadillac plan?

Was it supposed to have some reduction on your insurance cost? I never thought that. I thought it was supposed to flatten the trajectory of costs, not have it reduced immediately. I'm still digesting all of it...after a year of trying to get it.

Good thing all those big changes happen in 2014 so that Obama doesnt have to deal with their consequences (if any) in any elections.

Didn't Romney want the same type of health care for Mass. when he was Governor? I can't see how he can even comment on this. He's not going to win. He has yet to be specific on anything about what he'd do on issues. We already had a Muppet to special interests in Bush2. That didn't work out so well. Ask your 401k.

Romney wanted it in Massachusetts and got it done in Massachusetts. This is the Romneycare Plan taken national (like he advised should be done a few years ago, before he started hating it).

The Heritage Foundation wanted it, too, and Conservatives were all for it. That was in 1994, though, when a Democrat wanted something different (single payer). This current Democrat adopted the HF model, in many ways, and it immediately became Socialist.

I wonder if any of these ACA provisions address the Doc Fix problem that Clinton fucked up back in '99.

eCat wrote:where does it say that my insurance cost will go down as a result of this?

It doesn't. The theory is that by placing 30 million basically healthy working people buy insurance, it will decrease overall costs and thus the 5% rise that's been occurring each year, especially for those working for small businesses. Some wanted to mandate that rate increases be approved by states but this was declined.

and is an HMO considered a cadillac plan?

no.

Bklyn wrote:Romney wanted it in Massachusetts and got it done in Massachusetts. This is the Romneycare Plan taken national (like he advised should be done a few years ago, before he started hating it).

The Heritage Foundation wanted it, too, and Conservatives were all for it. That was in 1994, though, when a Democrat wanted something different (single payer). This current Democrat adopted the HF model, in many ways, and it immediately became Socialist.

I wonder if any of these ACA provisions address the Doc Fix problem that Clinton fucked up back in '99.

I was just asking

What if businesses and individuals decide it is cheaper to just pay the penalty instead of paying for insurance....

I work in health insurance, and have for over 30 years. I garauntee that in 2014 when insurance companies can no longer underwrite for pre existing conditions they will vanish out of the individual market like a fart in hurricane. They wll simpley go out of that business. They've already done it on individual child policies without an adult on it as well. You won't be able to buy individual health insurance at any price. There will be no suppliers, period. If you don't believe me try to buy insurance for a child alone, today. In that case a public option will be the only way to obtain coverage. Watch, over the next 2 years more companies will get out of small groups as well. Employer based health insurance is dying out as costs are soaring. Small companies can't afford it. A lot of people won't like it, but a single payer, a national Canadian/European type government all encompasing health plan will be reality within ten years. I'll be ready to retire by then. Thank God

Fifer wrote:I work in health insurance, and have for over 30 years. I garauntee that in 2014 when insurance companies can no longer underwrite for pre existing conditions they will vanish out of the individual market like a fart in hurricane. They wll simpley go out of that business. They've already done it on individual child policies without an adult on it as well. In that case a public option in those cases will be the only way to obtain coverage. Watch, over the next 2 years more companies will get out of small groups as well. Employer based health insurance is dying out as costs are soaring. Small companies can't afford it. A lot of people won't like it, but a single payer, a national Canadian/European type government all encompasing health plan will be reality within tens years. I'll be ready to retire by then. Thank God

I think that's just one of the silliest predictions I've heard in a long time. Insurance companies are one of the most lucrative businesses in this country. Through McCarron-Ferguson, they get to share information and set rates. They socialize their losses between one-another and capitalize their profits. Insurance stocks rose when the health care bill passed because despite the pre-existing conditions clause, they have a net increase of many millions of basically healthy individuals paying into the system.

They say they don't collude (they technically aren't supposed to make business decisions under the law but note this statement by Fifer,

They've already done it on individual child policies without an adult on it as well.

The 3 largest insurance companies all made this announcement on the same day in January 2010. I need a statistician to calculate the odds that they would make that same decision at the same time in the year.

Uh huh, if they jumped out of the child market where claims are low, why would they stay in an adult market with no underwriting? Try buying home insurance in Florida from anyone other than the state subsidized plan. Same difference, if the companies know they can't profit they turn tail and run, and leave it for the government to deal with.

sardis wrote:What if businesses and individuals decide it is cheaper to just pay the penalty instead of paying for insurance....

It's cheaper than paying the tax, especially for individuals. Then we'll see if Obama's original argument will hold up, that people will buy the insurance if it's cheap enough. Obama was against the mandate while running, and wanted a federal govt option. Bacchus (it's really his bill) immediately dropped both of these possibilities early. States are encourages to start up health exchanges (some have, some haven't). If the states don't want to run it for their own citizens, then the feds will and the remaining people that don't have health insurance through their employers, can get it through the exchanges.

I was just asked to be on a radio talk show for an hour discussing the legal side of the health care SCOTUS decision. I'll be on with my colleague, a former Asst. Atty General (who has put 3 of our last 5 insurance commissioners in jail and who's wife was later in the State Insurance office. He doesn't have nearly the negative view of insurance company prospects as you do Fifer.

There are some things in the Bill that the insurance agencies would like to get rid of (we had a representative talk to a med-legal conference 2 weeks ago in Chicago. And much of that could be done if we had any cooperation between the parties in Congress.