It's November 30th - Healthcare.gov still broken

[DHOHHI]

Quote from kid.fx.cross:

good, I am not that familiar with the requirements Could you explain to me what it means when Blue States on state exchanges are "expanding medicaid'? If it already helps the poor, why would it need to be expanded? If a man gets laid off and loses his coverage, and his unemployment insurance runs out, and he gets sick, does he qualify for Medicaid?

Here's a little overview ...

If your state is expanding Medicaid, you’ll probably qualify if you make up to about $15,800 a year for 1 person ($32,500 for a family of 4). (These are 2013 numbers, and likely to be slightly higher in 2014.) Coverage can start as soon as January 1, 2014.

Note for a family of 4 ... $32.5K. Then factor in that families of 4 above the $32.5K will get subsidies under Odumbocare all the way up to $92K. So in these states a very large percentage of the population will have taxpayers paying for their coverage. People who make more will get no subsidy and will see their premiums skyrocket.

And further, blue states tend to pay the least to doctors. That is, they're cheapskates. And yet they want to further expand Medicaid while doctors are forced to lose money on these patients due to the poor reimbursement.

What's notable is that, of the ten Medicaid states (including D.C.) that pay doctors the least, relative to private insurers, nine are reliably blue: New York (29 percent), Rhode Island (29%), New Jersey (32%), California (38%), D.C. (38%), Maine (42%), Florida (44%), Illinois (46%), Minnesota (46%), and Michigan (47%).

By contrast, of the ten states that pay doctors the most, nine usually vote red: Alaska (113%), Wyoming (94%), Idaho (82%), North Dakota (81%), Delaware (80%), Oklahoma (80%), New Mexico (79%), Arizona (78%), Montana (77%), and North Carolina (76%). Tennessee doesn't use a fee-for-service formula for its Medicaid programs, so its fees couldn't be compared to those of the other states.

 

[kid.fx.cross]

Quote from DHOHHI:

Here's a little overview ...

If your state is expanding Medicaid, you’ll probably qualify if you make up to about $15,800 a year for 1 person ($32,500 for a family of 4). (These are 2013 numbers, and likely to be slightly higher in 2014.) Coverage can start as soon as January 1, 2014.

Note for a family of 4 ... $32.5K. Then factor in that families of 4 above the $32.5K will get subsidies under Odumbocare all the way up to $92K. So in these states a very large percentage of the population will have taxpayers paying for their coverage. People who make more will get no subsidy and will see their premiums skyrocket.

And further, blue states tend to pay the least to doctors. That is, they're cheapskates. And yet they want to further expand Medicaid while doctors are forced to lose money on these patients due to the poor reimbursement.

What's notable is that, of the ten Medicaid states (including D.C.) that pay doctors the least, relative to private insurers, nine are reliably blue: New York (29 percent), Rhode Island (29%), New Jersey (32%), California (38%), D.C. (38%), Maine (42%), Florida (44%), Illinois (46%), Minnesota (46%), and Michigan (47%).

By contrast, of the ten states that pay doctors the most, nine usually vote red: Alaska (113%), Wyoming (94%), Idaho (82%), North Dakota (81%), Delaware (80%), Oklahoma (80%), New Mexico (79%), Arizona (78%), Montana (77%), and North Carolina (76%). Tennessee doesn't use a fee-for-service formula for its Medicaid programs, so its fees couldn't be compared to those of the other states.

hmmm, I'm not so sure I like that. I have no problem paying for a man trying to make it on 15k, and maybe even a family man making 32k (since families are good for our country, and even if he was responsible, maybe he just had high hopes before he started screwing is wife) but I don't think I like subsidizing 92k (that's more than I make) and it sounds like I am just paying Eli Lilly, or my doctor's convention in Hawaii or Las Vegas. Especially since all his expenses are paid by the drug company if he prescribes me enough Viagra.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from DHOHHI:

I may be a broken record but I'm not ignorant like you. You have FAILED to answer WHY citizens of the US are being FORCED to buy a PRODUCT that they neither want or need. The only people who voted to pass this are Dumbocrats. Then again, they love to give way freebies to US citizens to "buy" their votes. No INTELLIGENT person would have mandated a one size fits all health insurance policy with 4 different coverages/premiums (platinum, gold, silver & bronze). Healthy people do not want half the crap that is mandatory. It's useless to them. As are many of the requirements for older people. Consumers should have MANY choices, just as they do with any other product they shop for. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a country run by a dictator. Odumbo is just that '' dumb". He has the audacity to say high deductible policies are "lousy". I have pointed out that my current policy would be superior to the crappy policy I'll be stuck with that will cost 180% MORE.

Is there a one size fits all homeowners policy? Is there just a single auto policy we all must purchase? No, we have choices as to the coverages we want based on our individual circumstances and tolerance for risk, which has financial ramifications. I can choose to drop collision or comprehensive if I want. No insurance commissioner tells me what I must purchase. The same should be true with health insurance .. we CHOOSE what fits our needs. If you can't see or comprehend that simple fact then you're worse off than I thought.

As far as Medicaid ... I am VERY familiar with the requirements. So no lecture is needed from you. Virtually all the kids I volunteer with are on Medicaid.

Also, maybe you can explain why families of 4 making over $90,000 per year will get handouts (subsidies) from Odumbo.

Maybe you need to grow up ... we get it that you hate Republicans.

You are obviously ignorant of the requirements for medicaid, if your experience is limited to kids. But you have no reason to be that ignorant. You are exposed to clues every time you volunteer. Think!

I am not inclined to waste time trying to justify the ACA. It is very faulty law for the reasons I have stated many times in these forums.

Why are you forced to buy something you don't want to buy. Think about that too, and answer your own question. Here is a clue. Do you think it could have anything at all to do with statutory law? It is precisely the same reason that you are forced to drive between 70 and 40mph on the interstate, or risk being penalized, when you have no interest in driving 70 because you want to drive 100 mph.

If you really are interested in making a start on trying to understand the ACA and why the statutory requirements were written as they are, despite alternatives, you should take a stab at trying to understand what requirements would be inherent if a nation was attempting to bring affordable routine health care to virtually everyone, but in its first attempt to do so screwed a few things up.

Perhaps it would help if I asked you this question: "Have you ever lived in a country that had universal health care paid through taxes." If so, may i ask if you were allowed to opt out by refusing to pay your taxes? Or better yet, may I ask if you were permitted to withhold a portion of your taxes because the national health care plan covered maternity care for pregnant women, and as a man you had no interest in pregnant women, and in fact had no plans for becoming pregnant yourself! Maybe the answer to that question will help you answer your own question. If someone had access to healthcare but could not afford to pay for it, who do you think would pay for it? Does that help? Some can only learn by thinking things through for themselves. Perhaps you're one of those.

Let me say that you are an extremely fortunate individual,in some respects only, let me add. Not only do you have the advantage of knowing that you will never be pregnant , but you also know in advance exactly what coverage you want, and what you don't, because you know in advance what illnesses, maladies and accidents you will have, and what you won't. You will never have expenses beyond what you can afford, so you will never require the help of others to pay part of your medical bills. Yes indeed! A fortunate individual, with exceptional knowledge of the future. Why pay for coverage you'll never need, right?

 

[kid.fx.cross]

well, the difference is, I never met a man who decided to choose prostate cancer. Maybe a compromise would be "Maternity Coverage in the Case of Rape." I believe in a woman's right to choose.

 

[DHOHHI]

Quote from piezoe:

You are obviously ignorant of the requirements for medicaid, if your experience is limited to kids. But you have no reason to be that ignorant. You are exposed to clues every time you volunteer. Think!

I am not inclined to waste time trying to justify the ACA. It is very faulty law for the reasons I have stated many times in these forums.

Why are you forced to buy something you don't want to buy. Think about that too, and answer your own question. Here is a clue. Do you think it could have anything at all to do with statutory law? It is precisely the same reason that you are forced to drive between 70 and 40mph on the interstate, or risk being penalized, when you have no interest in driving 70 because you want to drive 100 mph.

If you really are interested in making a start on trying to understand the ACA and why the statutory requirements were written as they are, despite alternatives, you should take a stab at trying to understand what requirements would be inherent if a nation was attempting to bring affordable routine health care to virtually everyone, but in its first attempt to do so screwed a few things up.

Perhaps it would help if I asked you this question: "Have you ever lived in a country that had universal health care paid through taxes." If so, may i ask if you were allowed to opt out by refusing to pay your taxes? Or better yet, may I ask if you were permitted to withhold a portion of your taxes because the national health care plan covered maternity care for pregnant women, and as a man you had no interest in pregnant women, and in fact had no plans for becoming pregnant yourself! Maybe the answer to that question will help you answer your own question. If someone had access to healthcare but could not afford to pay for it, who do you think would pay for it? Does that help? Some can only learn by thinking things through for themselves. Perhaps you're one of those.

Let me say that you are an extremely fortunate individual,in some respects only, let me add. Not only do you have the advantage of knowing that you will never be pregnant , but you also know in advance exactly what coverage you want, and what you don't, because you know in advance what illnesses, maladies and accidents you will have, and what you won't. You will never have expenses beyond what you can afford, so you will never require the help of others to pay part of your medical bills. Yes indeed! A fortunate individual, with exceptional knowledge of the future. Why pay for coverage you'll never need, right?

Hey idiot. If you are a safe driver and I have speeding tickets and have wrecks I pay a HIGHER premium, if I am even insured. So why are 2/3 of this country who CHOOSE to be OBESE offered the same premiums as I who works out 6 days/week. Right, I knew you had no answer. So this is clearly different that other forms of insurance.

Thanks for REFUSING to answer my very simple questions regarding other forms of insurance that do not FORCE us to buy a product we don't need.

No further response required. Odumbo does NOT know what each individual requires. Thus, he and his idiot crew cannot decide what works for us. Any questions? So WHY can't we have choices? Very simple question ...

Oh yeah, you never answered why people with over $90K deserve subsidies.

 

[DHOHHI]

Quote from piezoe:

You are obviously ignorant of the requirements for medicaid, if your experience is limited to kids. But you have no reason to be that ignorant. You are exposed to clues every time you volunteer. Think!

I am not inclined to waste time trying to justify the ACA. It is very faulty law for the reasons I have stated many times in these forums.

Why are you forced to buy something you don't want to buy. Think about that too, and answer your own question. Here is a clue. Do you think it could have anything at all to do with statutory law? It is precisely the same reason that you are forced to drive between 70 and 40mph on the interstate, or risk being penalized, when you have no interest in driving 70 because you want to drive 100 mph.

If you really are interested in making a start on trying to understand the ACA and why the statutory requirements were written as they are, despite alternatives, you should take a stab at trying to understand what requirements would be inherent if a nation was attempting to bring affordable routine health care to virtually everyone, but in its first attempt to do so screwed a few things up.

Perhaps it would help if I asked you this question: "Have you ever lived in a country that had universal health care paid through taxes." If so, may i ask if you were allowed to opt out by refusing to pay your taxes? Or better yet, may I ask if you were permitted to withhold a portion of your taxes because the national health care plan covered maternity care for pregnant women, and as a man you had no interest in pregnant women, and in fact had no plans for becoming pregnant yourself! Maybe the answer to that question will help you answer your own question. If someone had access to healthcare but could not afford to pay for it, who do you think would pay for it? Does that help? Some can only learn by thinking things through for themselves. Perhaps you're one of those.

Let me say that you are an extremely fortunate individual,in some respects only, let me add. Not only do you have the advantage of knowing that you will never be pregnant , but you also know in advance exactly what coverage you want, and what you don't, because you know in advance what illnesses, maladies and accidents you will have, and what you won't. You will never have expenses beyond what you can afford, so you will never require the help of others to pay part of your medical bills. Yes indeed! A fortunate individual, with exceptional knowledge of the future. Why pay for coverage you'll never need, right?

Response #2 to Mr. Moron .. my experience goes way beyond kids as far as Medicaid goes. I would bet $$$ that I've forgotten more about Medicaid that you will ever know. Wagers welcomed .............

Further, MANY people choose to be obese. I don't. Why? I've paid 100% of my health care costs the past 18 years. All those getting subsidized insurance NOT are not in the same boat. Many have been uninsurable .. due to their CHOICE to be fat, out of shape, etc. WTF should I subsidize them? Go back to my question on auto or home insurance that you chose to no answer. Let's deal with insurance as a whole.

And why pay for coverage I'll never need? Simple. I'm not a SLOB. I take personal responsibility for my health. Sadly, most in this country are fat SLOBS. And that is a FACT. So yeah, let's subsidize these slobs.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from kid.fx.cross:

well, the difference is, I never met a man who decided to choose prostate cancer. Maybe a compromise would be "Maternity Coverage in the Case of Rape." I believe in a woman's right to choose.

You are looking at this issue from the viewpoint of an elective medical event, e.g., plastic surgery to reduce wrinkles, versus a non-elective medical event, e.g., being struck by a car while crossing the street. You may have logic on your side. At least you can make an intelligent argument for your position, however politically untenable it may be.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from DHOHHI:

Response #2 to Mr. Moron .. my experience goes way beyond kids as far as Medicaid goes. I would bet $$$ that I've forgotten more about Medicaid that you will ever know. Wagers welcomed .............

Further, MANY people choose to be obese. I don't. Why? I've paid 100% of my health care costs the past 18 years. All those getting subsidized insurance NOT are not in the same boat. Many have been uninsurable .. due to their CHOICE to be fat, out of shape, etc. WTF should I subsidize them? Go back to my question on auto or home insurance that you chose to no answer. Let's deal with insurance as a whole.

And why pay for coverage I'll never need? Simple. I'm not a SLOB. I take personal responsibility for my health. Sadly, most in this country are fat SLOBS. And that is a FACT. So yeah, let's subsidize these slobs.

When I don't answer your questions it is usually because they are pointless or not germane, ill stated, the answer is obvious, or they are absurd. However in some cases it may be that I don't know the answer. And naturally, there may be other reasons as well that i don't respond. Rest assured that if you state something that is logical and intelligent and shows a modicum of insight, I'll acknowledge your contribution, assuming I've read it.

 

[kid.fx.cross]

Quote from piezoe:

You are looking at this issue from the viewpoint of an elective medical event, e.g., plastic surgery to reduce wrinkles, versus a non-elective medical event, e.g., being struck by a car while crossing the street. You may have logic on your side. At least you can make an intelligent argument for your position, however politically untenable it may be.

ah, I was thinking about it last night,
If you think about it, almost all pregnancies go just fine. That is why there are 6 billion people in the world. But if anything goes wrong, the bill can hit 100k very quickly. It's going to take a lot of people just to save those few babies. Buying insurance after you get pregnant just like you buy insurance when you buy a new car isn't going to cut it. You really need a very big pool.

 

[kid.fx.cross]

but the way this crazy law is written, when you tell your parents they are going to be grandparents, the first thing they will say is, "Congratulations, better sign up for Obamacare."