What do you ALL think about OBAMACARE?

[MissK 5]

I honestly know nothing about it, Ive never had to pay for healthcare or insurance .. my belief system is that it should be available to everyone when they need it. I think insurance companies are greedy and I will never understand how Americans can think that having to pay for healthcare at all is fair. With that being said, Ive never been much into politics. Ive never been allowed to vote, I wont be able to vote here, but as for being told that I have to buy insurance, I fall into the grey place where the US gov. cant force me to, or fine me for this.

Well we(Norway) pay too, through our taxes as I'm sure it's the case in Canada too. The difference is that healthcare is equal for everybody no matter what. It is a safety net and to me that is freedom! (Freedom is to never ever have to worry if I'm covered good enough for the worst case scenario and will be in debt forever if do get sick).

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So is that why the stocks of all those medical companies shot up yesterday? Because they're not allowed to have profits anymore?

Immediately after the ruling, it was hospital and caregiving stocks that rose quickly. Initially, insurance companies experienced a drop in stock.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

My HMO sent me an email today:

Moving forward with your health in mind

About the Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court decision on the federal health care reform law has settled much of the legal uncertainty over how the law will be carried out.

As a Kaiser Permanente member, you need not be concerned about any disruption to your coverage and care resulting from the court's decision.

With your health and well-being in mind, we plan to continue our extensive efforts to implement health care reform, which began two years ago when the law first became effective.

• We are implementing state and federal reform laws as an integrated health care system. These laws incorporate certain requirements around health care coverage. They also address broader improvements to the way health care is delivered now and in the future.
  
• We are continuing to improve the quality and integration of care, and ensuring that we have the resources in place — physicians, nurses, and other staff, as well as the right health care facilities — to provide the care you and your family will need.
  
• We are also reviewing the court's decision to determine how it may affect the law's expansion of Medicaid coverage to millions of Americans, which is planned to begin in 2014.
  

While political uncertainty still remains, we'll continue to be guided by our goals of providing high-quality care, great service, and affordability to our members and the communities we serve.

Learn more about health care reform.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Free helthcare for the pregnant illegals they can cross the borders and drop the illegal babies for free.

[Dakine10 5,452]

My HMO sent me an email today:

I got the same email word for word. I had guessed Kaiser Permanente's business model probably makes compliance with the ACA a little easier anyway.

[Xanax 349]

I think it is definitely a step in the right direction! It may not be perfect but it is a 100% improvement on the current system,!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Frankly, I'm mystified that people think this is essentially the same plan that Mitt Romney approved in Massachusetts. They're only vaguely similar.

First, Massachusetts has two public options - MassHealth and Commonwealth Care. MassHealth was the Massachusetts Medicaid program, which expanded coverage with the enactment of the health reform law. Commonwealth Care is a new program created by the health reform law. Obamacare has no public option.

Second, the tax penalty in Massachusetts is based on the cost of Commonwealth Care. The maximum penalty is equal to 1/2 the cost of Commonwealth Care coverage. You'd have to pay the maximum penalty with an income of about $32,600 per year. The Obamacare tax penalty is 1% for the first year, and 2.5% thereafter. At the 2.5% penalty rate, you'd need an annual income of about $48,500 to be hit with the same penalty you'd pay in Massachusetts. The penalty in Massachusetts doesn't continue to rise as your income rises above 300% of the poverty guidelines, while the penalty under Obamacare is a fixed percentage of income.

Third, the Massachusetts law doesn't prohibit insurance companies from denying for pre-existing conditions. Obamacare does. The Massachusetts law forgives the tax penalty if you can't get affordable insurance (for example, because of a pre-existing condition). Obamacare doesn't make any exceptions based on the cost of insurance coverage.

Fourth, the Massachusetts law was amended to allow for discount plans for adults between age 18 and 26. Obamacare requires insurance companies to provide coverage for adults in that age group under their parent's insurance plans.

Fifth, Obamacare limits the difference between what an insurance company can charge for older vs. younger clients. The Massachusetts law doesn't impose any such restrictions. This gives insurance companies an incentive to raise rates on everyone in order to offset the risk from older clients.

In a nutshell, the Masachusetts law provided expanded public coverage while doing the bare minimum to mess with the private health insurance industry. Obamacare adds considerably to the risk assumed by private insurance companies, provides no public alternative, gives healthy people an easy way to opt out if the premiums resulting from those higher risks are too high, and makes it possible for them to reenter the insurance market if they become sick.

I think Obamacare will ultimately lead to the demise of the private health insurance industry.

P.S. - Almost forgot. Obamacare removes the lifetime cap from insurance benefits. The Massachusetts law does not. Another added risk for the insurance companies.

Edited June 30, 2012 by JimVaPhuong

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I got the same email word for word. I had guessed Kaiser Permanente's business model probably makes compliance with the ACA a little easier anyway.

Kaiser was a big supporter of ACA.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Frankly, I'm mystified that people think this is essentially the same plan that Mitt Romney approved in Massachusetts. They're only vaguely similar.

First, Massachusetts has two public options - MassHealth and Commonwealth Care. MassHealth was the Massachusetts Medicaid program, which expanded coverage with the enactment of the health reform law. Commonwealth Care is a new program created by the health reform law. Obamacare has no public option.

Second, the tax penalty in Massachusetts is based on the cost of Commonwealth Care. The maximum penalty is equal to 1/2 the cost of Commonwealth Care coverage. You'd have to pay the maximum penalty with an income of about $32,600 per year. The Obamacare tax penalty is 1% for the first year, and 2.5% thereafter. At the 2.5% penalty rate, you'd need an annual income of about $48,500 to be hit with the same penalty you'd pay in Massachusetts. The penalty in Massachusetts doesn't continue to rise as your income rises above 300% of the poverty guidelines, while the penalty under Obamacare is a fixed percentage of income.

Third, the Massachusetts law doesn't prohibit insurance companies from denying for pre-existing conditions. Obamacare does. The Massachusetts law forgives the tax penalty if you can't get affordable insurance (for example, because of a pre-existing condition). Obamacare doesn't make any exceptions based on the cost of insurance coverage.

Fourth, the Massachusetts law was amended to allow for discount plans for adults between age 18 and 26. Obamacare requires insurance companies to provide coverage for adults in that age group under their parent's insurance plans.

Fifth, Obamacare limits the difference between what an insurance company can charge for older vs. younger clients. The Massachusetts law doesn't impose any such restrictions. This gives insurance companies an incentive to raise rates on everyone in order to offset the risk from older clients.

In a nutshell, the Masachusetts law provided expanded public coverage while doing the bare minimum to mess with the private health insurance industry. Obamacare adds considerably to the risk assumed by private insurance companies, provides no public alternative, gives healthy people an easy way to opt out if the premiums resulting from those higher risks are too high, and makes it possible for them to reenter the insurance market if they become sick.

I think Obamacare will ultimately lead to the demise of the private health insurance industry.

P.S. - Almost forgot. Obamacare removes the lifetime cap from insurance benefits. The Massachusetts law does not. Another added risk for the insurance companies.

Both health care legislations have an individual mandate - which makes Romney look like a fool to even be pretending like he's against the ACA.

Also, a public option was something that Obama fought hard for, but thanks to the Republicans, he couldn't get it passed if there was a public option.

All those provisions you mentioned - like ACA preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions are what makes the ACA good healthcare reform.

And no, it won't be the demise to the insurance companies, but if it did, that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The idea that people can or should profit from those who need medical treatment is preposterous.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Both health care legislations have an individual mandate - which makes Romney look like a fool to even be pretending like he's against the ACA.

Also, a public option was something that Obama fought hard for, but thanks to the Republicans, he couldn't get it passed if there was a public option.

All those provisions you mentioned - like ACA preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions are what makes the ACA good healthcare reform.

And no, it won't be the demise to the insurance companies, but if it did, that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The idea that people can or should profit from those who need medical treatment is preposterous.

Yeah some of the more popular features of the bill are the pre-existing conditions policy, the cap policy, and the young adult policy. Effectively Americans support the vast majority of the bill except the mandate...which as you mention is a cap stone of the Romney policy.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Sousuke

[james&olya 1,121]

So is that why the stocks of all those medical companies shot up yesterday? Because they're not allowed to have profits anymore?

There is a big difference between companies in the business of actually providing the health-care (as in doctors, nurses, therapists, etc) and companies that provide health insurance (you know, the ones where you send them these huge premiums every month and then if you get sick they pay their employees to find any way they possibly can to avoid actually paying for the care you needed!). The ACA helps the former but may or may not benefit the latter.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Hospitals will be filled to the top of illegals. You waiting in line is bad while your guts are spilling out this is gonna get worse.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Hospitals will be filled to the top of illegals. You waiting in line is bad while your guts are spilling out this is gonna get worse.

Illegal immigrants are not covered by the ACA. "Obamacare" does nothing that would increase access to healthcare for illegal immigrants.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Illegal immigrants are not covered by the ACA. "Obamacare" does nothing that would increase access to healthcare for illegal immigrants.

Good they get enough free stuff as is.

[james&olya 1,121]

Illegal immigrants are not covered by the ACA. "Obamacare" does nothing that would increase access to healthcare for illegal immigrants.

You are right! The problem there will not change and the ignorance on the part of the population represented by the poster you responded to will help perpetuate serious difficulties being faced by many hospitals in this country! Whether the right wingers want it or not, those who have chosen the healing professions are not likely to turn their backs on those who present to emergency departments in need of care, regardless of whether they are 'legal' or not and whether the hospital will be paid under ACA or not. It is simply not MORAL to base your decision on whether to treat or not on a person's immigration status or on their ability to pay. Political considerations based in part on ignorance required the ACA to not include coverage for care of 'illegals'. This does not punish illegals nearly as much as it punishes the hospitals, doctors, and nurses that do not consider it morally acceptable to turn their back on these human beings. When these hospitals go under it will also punish all the legal citizens that depended on them!