Obamacare overview simplified

You can thank our State: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/03/health/obamacare-medicaid-gap-gupta/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


And the Supreme Court for allowing states to opt out. If we had it the original way it would be a good thing. Don't go blaming Obama for something you know nothing about. If you are so non-partisan why are you not blaming the GOP?

Sherry

 

The Good The Bad and The Ugly:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/04/news/economy/obamacare-costs/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Sherry

 

The GOP of North Carolina and every other state did what they were supposed too! They were smart to not expand Medicaid as the Federal government would only pay for it for a certain number of years. Who would have then picked up the tab?

The taxpayers in North Carolina.

If the system is horribly broken and widely abused with no control then you do not expand it.


Now that being said..... don't think this is the problem that Wulfie is dealing with.....

 

This is your ignorance in economics at work. If competition breeds lower prices (which it does) then why did one provider (First Carolina Care) opt out of the NC exchange? I mean, they were line to take advantage of there only being 3 options...with one of the three (Coventry Health Care) only being available to 37% of the state.

Why did they opt out? They were going to be able to charge more!! The reason is because it sucks and is not sustainable.

 

I for one am FOR the Gov't Exchanges.... Because my healthcare for my family at my work would cost nearly as much as my mortgage. $650.00 a month. That's insane for BCBSNC... Considering that I am under the National Poverty rate financially, I declined the offered coverage and stated why (Cost) on my explanation page.

If I denied my employers coverage, and I am denied "Obamacare" Then I am exempt from the fees, so I don't give a rats tushie!

And Anything that saves my family money, is something I can go with.

 

I wish you understood economics and how the ACA works as well as you think you do. Such a shame. You might want to actually read up on all of this before you "try" to put others down.

Sherry

 

My thoughts exactly yet currently they can and under Obamacare their ability to carry them even longer now.

 

Yeah we should have some kind of guideline on this. I wonder what percentage fall into this category? As a parent I can tell you that if I had a child who turned 18, was not enrolled in college, etc. (pregnant or fathered a child) I would have deep seeded second thoughts about covering that person with any kind of financial aid. But that's just me.

Sherry

 

Moron....I've been to a seminar and countless meetings over this boondoggle. Trust me....I've got a lot of it figured out.

 

Sure you do and stop calling me names.

Sherry

Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin is telling the truth. After news came out that North Carolina’s insurance rates would be, on average, higher than the nation as a whole, Goodwin told us why. It seems that in their effort to delay and obstruct Obamacare, Pat McCrory and the North Carolina legislature screwed the state’s citizens. Not that they care.

In those heady days right after they took power, the Republican legislature and McCrory wanted to flex their muscles and showcase their ideological purity by thwarting Obamacare. They rejected the expansion of Medicaid that would have provided insurance, at no cost to the state, to 500,000 people. Then, they told the federal government that the state would not set up an exchange to sell insurance, leaving the task to the federal government.

Their arrogant slaps at Obama’s signature program didn’t slow down implementation or make the feds blink. They just cost the people of North Carolina more money. The term “cutting off your nose to spite your face” comes to mind.

Goodwin explains that leaving those people off of Medicaid created a pool of high-risk consumers who would have to purchase health insurance through exchanges. That risk scared off insurance companies, limiting competition and raising rates.

But the General Assembly wasn’t just content to reject Medicaid, they passed a restrictive law that basically forbid the Department of Insurance from helping citizens and businesses better understand the law. And by rejecting state-run exchanges, the Republican leaders prevented Goodwin and his staff from recruiting more providers who would have cut the cost through competition–you know, through the free market.

So McCrory and North Carolina’s legislative leaders joined the national GOP’s obsession with killing Obamacare. The optics are terrible. They don’t have a single message about why they oppose the program other than it’s “Big Government.” What the public is starting to hear, though, is, “We don’t want people to have health insurance.”

 

Of course he is..... in your world only Democrats tell the truth and he is a card carrying Democrat

Good job by them. They knew the taxpayers of North Carolina would have to pick up the cost once Uncle Sugar got tired of it and quite frankly there is not a good reason to expand a horribly broken and abused Medicaid system.

That is the message you hear. I congratulate the NC legislature as they have taken small steps to fix North Carolina.

There is still a lot of things that need to be done. The GOP is doing a great job in Raleigh. Senator Berger is the man!

 

Actually all of this discussion/talk should take place in the Political Pit but I will answer you here.

In your world only Republicans tell the truth. You claim to be non-partisan, hating both Parties, but truth be told you sure are spewing it towards Democrats and not much against Republicans....so....

Not true.

You congratulate them because they are Republican. Go figure. Don't worry about women's care, educators, etc.

Of course you think the GOP is doing great. You are a card carrying member.


I'm going to try and stick to the partisan political stuff over in the Political Pit and just put information over here.

Sherry

 

I wonder if people in the states who decided not to go the route realize what it means to refuse the Medicaid expansion. In NC, if your income is below the poverty level, you must be disabled (under a very strict definition of disability), or elderly, a child, or a pregnant woman to qualify for Medicaid. If you don't meet those requirements, you'll still be uninsured.

The ACA provides for expanded Medicaid to cover everyone under the poverty level, and subsidies for people whose income is between 100% to 400% of the poverty level. Then the Supreme Court decided that the Medicaid expansion would be optional. What? When did a court ever say the federal government could not attach conditions to money it gives to the states? So, even though the feds would pay 100% of the cost for the first 3 years and never less than 90% in the out years, some 20 states decided they would rather let poor people go without insurance.

So how much money do they save by doing that? Well let's think about it. Are those people not going to get sick because they don't have insurance? Of course not, but they will postpone treatment because they don't have insurance. So they will be sicker when they get health care. And they will go to the emergency room, the most expensive way to get treatment, because they won't get turned away. They won't be able to pay for treatment, because they still don't have any money. So who pays? Everybody else, as hospitals and doctors raise their rates to cover those losses plus all the money they spent trying to collect. So is this decision fiscally sound? Or is it just mean-spirited?

 

Thanks Cliffie......

Post where you want the reality is that I think North Carolina was overdue for change.


The Democrats had pretty much bankrupted North Carolina. Didn't you once say the following

North Carolina had to cut taxes. It only took Republicans to get it done. Maybe North Carolina has a chance. There is still work to be done.

 

Oh now you're going to be like Stinger/That's What She Said/Barry and get all personal with me.

Never mind. Thought we could discuss issues.

Sherry

 

I am none of those people, but if you are going to question what I say then I am going to pull your own quotes out for you.

If you really believe that taxes should be cut and a balanced budget is needed then you would know the Republicans did a great thing by not expanding Medicaid.

Washington has proven numerous times that they like to start programs and then make the States keep paying for it.

There is no doubt North Carolina would have been stuck with billions in increased spending. If we must balance the budget every year without raising taxes you have to go to the Education budget.

Look at the outrage when the Republicans touched Education on the last go around.

 

I have to agree with the Pirate on this one. Some food for thought:

http://www.nasbo.org/budget-topics/healthcare-medicaid

"Key healthcare and Medicaid issues create enormous financial and policy challenges for states. The rapid growth in healthcare costs continues to be a significant fiscal issue for states. In fiscal 2011, it is estimated that Medicaid comprised 23.6 percent of total state expenditures. There are also many challenges ahead as states move forward with implementing national health care reform."

http://www.nccppr.org/drupal/conten...wing-progam-in-the-states-budget-growth-will-

"A new study by the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research finds that as North Carolina’s older population doubles by 2030, the Medicaid program will consume an ever-greater portion of the state budget. Medicaid provides health care for individuals with low incomes, long term care for the elderly, and services for people with disabilities. According to recent estimates from the Fiscal Research Division of the N.C. General Assembly, Medicaid already is the fastest-growing program in the state budget. In the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2009, the authorized state budget for Medicaid was $3.2 billion, or 15 percent of the total state budget – an increase of 9 percent from 2008. And, just last week, N.C. Secretary of Health and Human Services Lanier Cansler told legislators that Medicaid is expected to be $250 million over budget by June 2010, creating a problem for next year’s budget, which begins in July 2010."

"Nationally, Medicaid spending is expected to average 8.4 percent growth per year between 2009 and 2018. Medicaid could consume more than 6 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product by 2080, says the U.S. Government Accountability Office. National health care reform is nearing passage by Congress, and it includes further expansion of Medicaid. This could make balancing state budgets very difficult and put current levels of spending for public schools at risk, says the national publication State Policy Reports. In 2009, the state faced a $4.5 billion deficit, and legislative fiscal analysts do not project state revenue to return to pre-recession levels until 2013."

Any additional "funding" from the Feds for Medicaid will be from more borrowed money. We have a $17 trillion national debt. We can not continue to add to that. IMO, any new or additional taxes should go to balancing the budget and paying down the debt.

 

Wise words from an elder! Would prefer that there are no new taxes as there are more than enough. Just have to cut spending that much more aggressively.

The morose Federal government loves to spend money and then transition it to State and Local governments thus making them hold the bag and take the bullets.

 

Obamacare

Wayne, thank you for all of your hard work in posting this. Your efforts are applauded. This is not a political statement on my part. I need someone to explain to me why it is fair for a person who makes over $200,000 a year to have an increase in taxes (don't say it is a minimal amount - if someone came to you and said they were taking $2,000 would it be trivial?) to pay for healthcare for others. When I see something that says that taxes are going up on tanning beds, medical devices, etc., it tells me that I am going to be taxed more in order to pay for this plan. While I don't currently use tanning beds or any medical devices, I am smart enough to know that those taxes will be passed on to the consumer. Our insurance broker has told our company to expect significant increases in our rates next year - so that we can help pay for the coverages that the insurance companies must now offer. Why should some people get subsidies and others not? Someone is paying for the subsidies and it can be colored in a lot of different ways, but eventually it boils down to an increase in taxes for those who pay taxes.

I have worked hard throughout my life and don't expect to be given anything by anyone. I changed careers a little over ten years ago and started all over at the bottom of my chosen profession and have risen to an executive management position since then through hard work and sacrifice. So please do not tell me - democrat or republican (not capitalized intentionally) - that I need to fork over more of my hard earned money to pay for other people's health care, WIC, Welfare, head start, etc. If I didn't have the job that I have, I would get however many jobs I needed to in order to make ends meet, and I guarantee you that I would end up getting promoted and getting raises because of my work ethic (case in point, when my pay got cut significantly in 2009 and 2010, I got a part time job at a shoe store at night to make sure I could pay all of my bills). There are many organizations that help take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and I applaud them and contribute to them, but there are way too many people in this country who have learned who to work the system instead of working and I for one am tired of my money being taken and given those who will not work.

 

Roadman,

I understand the confusion. I believe the tax on tanning beds is similar to the concept of taxes on cigarettes, in that it helps to dissuade a poor health choice while generating funds for health coverage. The tax on medical devices is a little more unclear. It may be more similar to a sales tax approach, since medical devices may not be subject to saels taxes at the present time.

As for the payment for healthcare for others, we are already paying more in the current system. Unfortuneately my wife has spent a lot of time in the ER in the last few years and as a result I have had the opportunity to view how that system works in several hospitals in multiple states. My views correspond with the research that shows those without health coverage will either use the ER because they must be treated or put off treatment until the ER is a necessity. In either case the costs of the unpaid visits are added to the bill I pay. Medical costs are far too similar to airline fees in that everyone seems to be charged a different price. The insurance companies negotiate what they will pay and how we will be treated as part of their normal business. Those without insurance may be charged more or in many cases less than those with insurance. There are a lot of changes which need to be made to the medical industry, and part of that will require a greater coverage for the population. The only way that can be accomplished at this time is with something like the ACA.